Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161873AbXECNk5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 09:40:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161875AbXECNk5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 09:40:57 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.238]:36849 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161873AbXECNk4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2007 09:40:56 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Y9omIXkJM3I3BPQ55UcjlDCHbnej0xkhcloNXps3mTRNifK9yS9XkD9j59iMAvycPzgMl0GskftnjuUxuvD98LPOofSM6uj4VHUyNzOvQtnN2KGqwr5HsF3a9m/tlKGt3dj6AAuW9XLPENFweoft5iGRJm6GrEniNDBLt9cixKQ= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 06:40:54 -0700 From: "Ulrich Drepper" To: "Davi Arnaut" Subject: Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex Cc: "Eric Dumazet" , "Andrew Morton" , "Davide Libenzi" , "Linus Torvalds" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" In-Reply-To: <4638D2FE.3060706@haxent.com.br> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070502052235.914764000@haxent.com.br> <20070502095503.a06f5472.dada1@cosmosbay.com> <20070502104936.674a4b54.dada1@cosmosbay.com> <4638C37D.7050503@haxent.com.br> <4638CC6D.6080505@haxent.com.br> <4638D2FE.3060706@haxent.com.br> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1176 Lines: 28 On 5/2/07, Davi Arnaut wrote: > The usage cases of yours are quite different from mine. We don't use a > single file descriptor to to manage various resources. The worker threads > are _not going_ to have a file descriptor, _only_ the event dispatching > (poll) > thread. An model which doesn't scale well. > A pollable futex is even more useful for _single_ threaded programs that > don't want to go into lengthy hacks to monitor events coming from the > outside > world. There is nothing here that cannot be done with a more complete model for event handling. It's Linus decision whether he wants to add yet more code, yet more possible problems, yet more maintenance overhead/nightmare for an interim solution which isn't necessary, which cannot solve all the problems, and which is not as scalable as other proposed methods. I can only say that I would be trickly against it. It makes just no sense. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/