|| ||"Ulrich Drepper" <drepper-AT-gmail.com>|
|| ||"Davi Arnaut" <davi-AT-haxent.com.br>|
|| ||Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex|
|| ||Thu, 3 May 2007 06:40:54 -0700|
|| ||"Eric Dumazet" <dada1-AT-cosmosbay.com>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
"Davide Libenzi" <davidel-AT-xmailserver.org>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel-AT-vger.kernel.org>|
On 5/2/07, Davi Arnaut <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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
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 post comments)