From: wli@movementarian.org
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/7] epoll keyed wakeups - introduce key-aware wakeup macros
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:28:32 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090131212832.GB26410@movementarian.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0901311104180.18888@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009, wli@movementarian.org wrote:
>> The filtered wakeup code uses some notion of a key already. There, the
>> key is to route wakeups to recipients associated with the correct
>> object. Here, the objects are known in advance. The wakeup is to give
>> them some particular message in which they may not necessarily be
>> interested. Names indicative of that (e.g. *_msg/msg_*) would clarify
>> the distinction between it and the filtered wakeup code used for pages.
On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 11:08:40AM -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> I had thought of giving the void* some structure, besides being a cast
> from an event mask, so that later on we'd be able to eventually embed
> more information in the wakeup. Dunno if worth it.
kernel/wait.c uses struct wait_bit_key; void * was merely for keeping it
as private as possible, though it is exposed for the sake of macros like
DEFINE_WAIT_BIT et al. It would make little difference to the pagecache
waitqueue code if the structure were augmented, the function prototypes
changed to reflect the argument type, etc. There are a priori guarantees
based on the objects that the lists of tasks considered won't overlap,
so unrelated structures are even possible.
-- wli
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-31 21:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-31 3:25 Davide Libenzi
2009-01-31 3:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-31 3:50 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-01-31 3:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-31 13:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-31 18:57 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-01-31 9:25 ` Alan Cox
2009-01-31 19:03 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-01-31 3:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-31 4:01 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-01-31 4:57 ` wli
2009-01-31 19:08 ` Davide Libenzi
2009-01-31 21:28 ` wli [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20090131212832.GB26410@movementarian.org \
--to=wli@movementarian.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®