Re: [take2 1/4] kevent: core files.
From: David Miller
Date: Tue Aug 01 2006 - 20:00:56 EST
From: Zach Brown <zach.brown@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:56:59 -0700
> Even if we only have one syscall with a cmd multiplexer (which I'm not
> thrilled with), we should at least make these arguments explicit in the
> system call. It's weird to hide them in a struct. We could also think
> about making them u32 or u64 so that we don't need compat wrappers, but
> maybe that's overkill.
I think making the userspace data structure not require any compat
handling is a must, thanks for pointing this out Zach.
> It'd be great if these struct members could get a prefix (ala: inode ->
> i_, socket -> sk_) so that it's less painful getting tags helpers to
> look up instances for us. Asking for 'lock' is hilarious.
> Hmm. I think the current preference is not to have a lock per bucket.
Yes, it loses badly, that's why we undid this in the routing cache
and just have a fixed sized array of locks which is hashed into.
For kevents, I think a single spinlock initially is fine and
if we hit performance problems on SMP we can fix it. We should
not implement complexity we have no proof of needing yet :)
> > +#define KEVENT_MAX_REQUESTS PAGE_SIZE/sizeof(struct kevent)
> This is unused?
It is probably groundwork for the mmap() ring buffer... :)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/