On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Tuesday 27 February 2007 17:03, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > On Tue, 27 Feb 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > On Tuesday 27 February 2007 03:32, Davide Libenzi wrote: > > > > Epoll is doing multiple passes over the ready set at the moment, > > > > because of the constraints over the f_op->poll() call. Looking at the > > > > code again, I noticed that we already hold the epoll semaphore in read, > > > > and this (together with other locking conditions that hold while doing > > > > an epoll_wait()) can lead to a smarter way to "ship" events to > > > > userspace (in a single pass). I added more (even) more comments to the > > > > code to explain the conditions why certain operations are safe. > > > > This is a stress application that can be used to test the new code. It > > > > spwans multiple thread and call epoll_wait() and epoll_ctl() from many > > > > threads. Stress tested on my dual Opteron 254 w/out any problems. > > > > > > Davide, > > > > > > This is really cool, because the size of epitem would fit now in 128 > > > bytes instead of 192 (on x86_64 platforms). So we also reduce memory > > > usage. > > > > Yeah, I forgot to mention that I removed the txlink member. > > I am pretty sure you can also remove revents member from epitem. > > It would greatly benefit to 32bits platforms, because resulting size would be > 64 bytes instead of 68 (so a 50 % reduction because of 64 bytes alignment)
Yes indee. That does not need to exist anymore, once the de-coupled loop is gone. Thx, I'll make a new patch later today. - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
