Re: kqueue microbenchmark results

[Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>]

* 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."
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/