Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] epoll: introduce EPOLLEXCLUSIVE and EPOLLROUNDROBIN

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/