Re: [1/1] connector/CBUS: new messaging subsystem. Revision numbernext.
From: Evgeniy Polyakov
Date: Tue Apr 26 2005 - 13:12:29 EST
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:03:54 +0400
Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 12:31:58 -0500
> Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > There may not be the same work with different data.
> > >
> > Ugh, that really blows. Now every user of a particular message type
> > has to coordinate efforts with other users of the same message type...
> > Imability to "fire and forget" undermines usefulness of whole
> > connector. How will you for example implement hotplug notification
> > over connector? Have kobject_hotplug wait and block other instances?
> > But wait on what?
> This is a simple load balancing schema.
> Netlink messages may be dropped in socket queue when
> they are bing delivered to userspace - this is the same -
> if work queue can not be scheduled, message will be dropped,
> but in this case userspace also can not be scheduled
> and message will be dropped.
Btw, I belive we see that it is reverse direction...
So we have reverse load balancing schema here -
exactly like userspace socket queueing.
We basically can not sleep here - it will be DOS.
> > --
> > Dmitry
> Evgeniy Polyakov
> Only failure makes us experts. -- Theo de Raadt
Only failure makes us experts. -- Theo de Raadt
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/