On 7/25/07, Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 04:41:53AM +0530, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> [...]
> > But where does the "send" come into the picture over here -- a send
> won't block forever, so I don't foresee any issues whatsoever w.r.t.
> kthreads conversion for that. [ BTW I hope you're *not* using any
> signals-based interface for your kernel thread _at all_. Kthreads
> disallow (ignore) all signals by default, as they should, and you really
> shouldn't need to write any logic to handle or > do-certain-things-on-seeing
> a signal in a well designed kernel thread. ]
> > > and the sending
> > latency is crucial to performance, while the recv
> > will not timeout for the next few seconds.
> > Again, I don't see what sending latency has to do with a kernel_thread
> to kthread conversion. Or with signals, for that matter. Anyway, as
> Kyle Moffett mentioned elsewhere, you could probably look at other
> examples (say cifs_demultiplexer_thread() in fs/cifs/connect.c).
the basic problem, and what we use signals for, is:
it is waiting in recv, waiting for the peer to say something.
but I want it to stop recv, and go send something "right now".
That's ... weird. Most (all?) communication between any two parties
would follow a protocol where someone recv's stuff, does something
with it, and sends it back ... what would you send "right now" if you
didn't receive anything?