Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:42:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:42:17 -0400 Received: from pc-62-30-255-50-az.blueyonder.co.uk ([62.30.255.50]:16553 "EHLO kushida.apsleyroad.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 5 Aug 2002 11:42:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:44:40 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andi Kleen , Richard Zidlicky , Jeff Dike , Alan Cox , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: context switch vs. signal delivery [was: Re: Accelerating user mode linux] Message-ID: <20020805164440.A7285@kushida.apsleyroad.org> References:

<20020805164126.D7130@kushida.apsleyroad.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20020805164126.D7130@kushida.apsleyroad.org>; from lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk on Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 04:41:26PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 814 Lines: 22 Jamie Lokier wrote: > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > And threads can do queued events that amortizes context switch > > overhead, while queued signals generate per-event signal delivery, so > > signal delivery costs are not amortized. > > > > (Not that i advocate SIGIO or helper threads for highperformance IO - > > Ben's aio interface is the fastest and most correct approach.) > > Isn't the per-event queued signal cost amortised when using sigwaitinfo()? Of course I meant: Isn't the per-event queued signal cost amortised when using sigtimedwait()? cheers, -- Jamie - 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/