netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC, PATCH] netlink based mq_notify(SIGEV_THREAD)

To: Manfred Spraul <manfred@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH] netlink based mq_notify(SIGEV_THREAD)
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 03 Apr 2004 15:18:07 -0500
Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Michal Wronski <wrona@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Krzysztof Benedyczak <golbi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <406F13A1.4030201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Organization: jamalopolis
References: <406F13A1.4030201@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: hadi@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 2004-04-03 at 14:42, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> mq_notify(SIGEV_THREAD) must be implemented in user space. If an event 
> is triggered, the kernel must send a notification to user space, and 
> then glibc must create the thread with the requested attributes for the 
> notification callback.

I am ignorant about SIGEV_THREAD but from what i gathered above: 

- something (from user space??) attempts to create a thread in the
kernel
- the kernel sends notification to user space when said thread is
created or done doing something it was asked
- something (in glibc/userspace??) is signalled by the kernel to do
something with the result

Is the above correct?

>  The current implementation in Andrew's -mm tree 
> uses single shot file descriptor - it works, but it's resource hungry.

Essentially you attempt to open only a single fd via netlink as opposed
to open/close behavior you are alluding to, is that correct? 
then all events are unicast to this fd. I am assuming you dont need to
have more than one listener to these events? example, could one process
create such a event which multiple processes may be interested in?

> Attached is a new proposal:
> - split netlink_unicast into separate substeps
> - use an AF_NETLINK socket for the message queue notification

I am trying to frob why you mucked around with AF_NETLINK; maybe your
response will shed some light.

cheers,
jamal



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>