Re: [patch 6/9] signalfd/timerfd v1 - timerfd core ...

Nicholas Miell
2007-03-11T02:10:08Z

On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 17:57 -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2007, Nicholas Miell wrote:
>
> > If that's the goal, somebody should start thinking about reducing the
> > contents of struct file to the bare minimum (i.e. not much more than a
> > file_operations pointer).
>
> That's already pretty smal, and the single inode (and maybe dentry) will
> make it even smaller. Unless you want to create brazillions of signalfds,
> timerfds or asyncfds.
>

Timers don't need dentry or inode pointers or readahead state, etc., do
they? (Beyond the existing VFS expectation, that is.)

> > > And the real point of the whole signalfd() is that there really *are* a
> > > lot of UNIX interfaces that basically only work with file descriptors. Not
> > > just read, but select/poll/epoll.
> >
> > It'd be useful if the polling interfaces could return small datums
> > beyond just the POLL* flags -- having to do a read on timerfd just to
> > get the overrun count has a lot of overhead for just an integer, and I
> > imagine other things would like to pass back stuff too.
> ...
>
> > You still want timeouts, creating/setting/destroying at timer just for
> > a single call to select/poll/epoll is probably too heavy weight.
>
> Take a look at what timerfd does and what posix timers has to do to
> implement the interface. You'll prolly stop trolling with things like "a
> lot of overhead" or "too heavy weight".

That wasn't a troll. I was talking about the timerfd()/close() overhead
and the corresponding bookkeeping necessary to keep that fd around
compared to just passing a struct timespec to poll or a millisecond
count to epoll_wait.

> > timerfd() still leaves out the basic clock selection functionality
> > provided by both setitimer() and timer_create().
>
> That is coming as soon as I fixed my send-serie script ...

Nice.

--
Nicholas Miell <nmiell@comcast.net>