From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030284AbXDKTpq (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:45:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030283AbXDKTpq (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:45:46 -0400 Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]:13300 "EHLO rgminet01.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030284AbXDKTpp (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:45:45 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:44:38 -0700 From: Zach Brown To: Ken Chen Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] convert aio event reap to use atomic-op instead of spin_lock Message-ID: <20070411194438.GC9602@mami.zabbo.net> References: <20070410235353.325A7346F64@localhost> <20070411180038.GN28322@mami.zabbo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > >I have mixed feelings. I think the userspace getevents support was > >poorly designed and the simple fact that we've gone this long without it > >says just how desperately the feature isn't needed. > > I kept on getting requests from application developers who want that > feature. My initial patch was dated back May 2004. My point is that demand for it doesn't seem to be very high, and your use of the past tense there seems to support that. And the patches to support it are not looking great. Is it worth it, then? What difference are you measuring so far? - z