Re: [PATCH] input: evdev: Use multi-reader buffer to save space(rev5)
From: Dmitry Torokhov
Date: Fri Jun 25 2010 - 04:14:59 EST
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:11:47AM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
> Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > Overall I am starting getting concerned about proper isolation between
> > clients. Right now, if one client stops reading events and another one
> > issues grab then the first client will only get events that were
> > accumulated before grab tookm place. With the new shared buffer the
> > first client may get "grabbed" events if it stop for long enough for
> > buffer to wrap around.
> Doing some research, the semantics of ioctl have obviously been discussed
> before, and I believe this points to another such issue. When grabbing a device,
> are we guaranteeing that the device no longer sends events to other clients, or
> are we guaranteeing that other clients can no longer read the device? If the
> latter, clearing all client buffers in conjunction with a grab would be
> appropriate, and would solve this issue.
Yes, I think it would be acceptable approach.
> > Do we really same that much memory here? We normally do not have that
> > many users connected to event devices at once...
> Ok, let's scratch this. Although I think the idea of multi-reader buffers is
> sound, it is obviously sufficiently incompatible with the current approach to
> produce distastefully complex patches. I will return with a new set which only
> fixes the buffer resize problem, and leaves the rest for later.
Right, let's merge this and also MT slots and revisit this issue at some
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/