Re: kqueue microbenchmark results

Alfred Perlstein
2000-10-27T16:42:58Z

* Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu> [001027 09:40] wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > kqueue currently does this; a close() on an fd will remove any pending
> > > > events from the queues that they are on which correspond to that fd.
> > >
> > > the application of a close event. What can I say, "the fd formerly known
> > > as X" is now gone? It would be incorrect to say that "fd X was closed",
> > > since X no longer refers to anything, and the application may have reused
> > > that fd for another file.
> >
> > Which is precisely why you need to know where in the chain of events this
> > happened. Otherwise if I see
> >
> > 'read on fd 5'
> > 'read on fd 5'
> >
> > How do I know which read is for which fd in the multithreaded case
>
> That can't happen, can it? Let's say the following happens:
> close(5)
> accept() = 5
> call kevent() and rebind fd 5
> The 'close(5)' would remove the old fd 5 events. Therefore,
> any fd 5 events you see returned from kevent are for the new fd 5.
>
> (I suspect it helps that kevent() is both the only way to
> bind events and the only way to pick them up; makes it harder
> for one thread to sneak a new fd into the event list without
> the thread calling kevent() noticing.)

Yes, that's how it does and should work. Noticing the close()
should be done via thread communication/IPC not stuck into
kqueue.

--
-Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org]
"I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk."