Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex
[Posted May 8, 2007 by corbet]
| From: |
| "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper-AT-gmail.com> |
| To: |
| "Davi Arnaut" <davi-AT-haxent.com.br> |
| Subject: |
| Re: [patch 14/22] pollfs: pollable futex |
| Date: |
| Thu, 3 May 2007 06:40:54 -0700 |
| Cc: |
| "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> |
| Archive-link: |
| Article,
Thread
|
On 5/2/07, Davi Arnaut <davi@haxent.com.br> 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.
(
Log in to post comments)