From: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
To: Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
x86@kernel.org, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@plumgrid.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@google.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
Rashika Kheria <rashika.kheria@gmail.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/6] epoll: Introduce new syscall "epoll_mod_wait"
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:53:38 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150120105338.GA4040@ad.nay.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <874mrl3fh9.fsf@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
On Tue, 01/20 11:37, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20 2015, Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > DESCRIPTION
> >
> > The epoll_mod_wait() system call can be seen as an enhanced combination
> > of several epoll_ctl(2) calls, which are followed by an epoll_pwait(2)
> > call. It is superior in two cases:
> >
> > 1) When epoll_ctl(2) are followed by epoll_wait(2), using epoll_mod_wait
> > will save context switches between user mode and kernel mode;
> >
> > 2) When you need higher precision than microsecond for wait timeout.
>
> You probably want to say millisecond.
Yes, you see that I just can't make this right. :)
>
> > struct epoll_mod_cmd {
> [...]
> > };
>
>
> > struct epoll_wait_spec {
> [...]
> > } EPOLL_PACKED;
>
> Either both or none of these should mention that EPOLL_PACKED is in fact
> part of the actual definition. The changelog for 3/6 sorta mentions
> that it's not really needed for epoll_mod_cmd. Why is it necessary for
> either struct?
Yeah. it's probably not really necessary.
>
> > RETURN VALUE
> >
> > When successful, epoll_mod_wait() returns the number of file
> > descriptors ready for the requested I/O, or zero if no file descriptor
> > became ready during the requested timeout milliseconds.
>
> And here, it doesn't make sense to mention a unit, since the new timeout
> is given using struct timespec (this was the whole point, right?).
Right!
Thanks,
Fam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-20 10:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-20 9:57 [PATCH RFC 0/6] epoll: Introduce new syscall "epoll_mod_wait" Fam Zheng
2015-01-20 9:57 ` [PATCH RFC 1/6] epoll: Extract epoll_wait_do and epoll_pwait_do Fam Zheng
2015-01-20 9:57 ` [PATCH RFC 2/6] epoll: Specify clockid explicitly Fam Zheng
2015-01-20 9:57 ` [PATCH RFC 3/6] epoll: Add definition for epoll_mod_wait structures Fam Zheng
2015-01-20 9:57 ` [PATCH RFC 4/6] epoll: Extract ep_ctl_do Fam Zheng
2015-01-20 9:57 ` [PATCH RFC 5/6] epoll: Add implementation for epoll_mod_wait Fam Zheng
2015-01-20 12:50 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-21 4:59 ` Fam Zheng
2015-01-21 7:52 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-21 8:58 ` Fam Zheng
2015-01-21 10:37 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-01-21 11:14 ` Fam Zheng
2015-01-21 11:50 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-01-22 21:12 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-01-23 6:20 ` Fam Zheng
2015-01-23 9:56 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-01-21 10:34 ` Paolo Bonzini
2015-01-21 7:56 ` Omar Sandoval
2015-01-21 8:59 ` Fam Zheng
2015-01-20 9:57 ` [PATCH RFC 6/6] x86: Hook up epoll_mod_wait syscall Fam Zheng
2015-01-20 10:37 ` [PATCH RFC 0/6] epoll: Introduce new syscall "epoll_mod_wait" Rasmus Villemoes
2015-01-20 10:53 ` Fam Zheng [this message]
2015-01-20 12:48 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-21 9:05 ` Fam Zheng
2015-01-20 22:40 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-01-20 23:03 ` josh
2015-01-21 5:55 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2015-01-21 9:07 ` Fam Zheng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150120105338.GA4040@ad.nay.redhat.com \
--to=famz@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ast@plumgrid.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=dh.herrmann@gmail.com \
--cc=drysdale@google.com \
--cc=heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=mszeredi@suse.cz \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rashika.kheria@gmail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=vapier@gentoo.org \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).