* Jason Baron <jba...@akamai.com> wrote:
> So in the case of multiple threads per epoll set, we
> currently add to the head of wakeup queue exclusively in
> 'epoll_wait()', and then subsequently remove from the
> queue once 'epoll_wait()' returns. So I don't think this
> patch addresses balancing on a per epoll set basis.
Okay, so I was confused about how the code works.
> I think we could address the case you describe by simply
> doing __add_wait_queue_tail_exclusive() instead of
> __add_wait_queue_exclusive() in epoll_wait(). [...]
Yes.
> [...] However, I think the userspace API change is less
> clear since epoll_wait() doesn't currently have an
> 'input' events argument as epoll_ctl() does.
... but the change would be a bit clearer and somewhat more
flexible: LIFO or FIFO queueing, right?
But having the queueing model as part of the epoll context
is a legitimate approach as well.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
