Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking)

From: Peter Wemm (peter_at_wemm.org)
Date: 04/17/04

  • Next message: Peter Wemm: "Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking)" 
    To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:59:50 -0700

    On Friday 16 April 2004 10:13 pm, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
    > Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
    > > In article <200404170330.i3H3Ul0t032543@green.homeunix.org> you
    write:
    > > >I can't imagine a well-designed applications has kqueues of
    > > > kqueues.
    > >
    > > I can in about five seconds' worth of thought.
    > >
    > > Suppose you have library X. It accomplishes some task
    > > asynchronously (it doesn't matter what or how), and provides a
    > > descriptor that the calling application must poll for completion.
    > > Now use that library into an application that has its own event
    > > loop.
    > >
    > > This is one of the specific motivating examples behind doing kqueue
    > > rather than simply extending poll() or select(). Please go and
    > > read the papers before you continue down this path.
    >
    > Contrived. Let's see one. There won't be any -- they will be using
    > threads, not kqueues, because threads work on more than one system.

    Actually no. We do this sort of nesting at work. And we don't use
    threads. Its not a contrived example. 

    -- 
Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
  • Next message: Peter Wemm: "Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking)"