From: Michael Kerrisk <mtk-manpages@gmx.net>
To: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
Cc: "Ulrich Drepper" <drepper@redhat.com>,
geoff@gclare.org.uk, lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@lst.de>,
"Jonathan Corbet" <corbet@lwn.net>,
"Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
vda.linux@googlemail.com,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"Lee Schermerhorn" <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com>,
"David Härdeman" <david@hardeman.nu>
Subject: Re: RFC: A revised timerfd API
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:12:41 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46F514C9.5010208@gmx.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709180936480.22956@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Davide, Andrew, Linus, et al.
At the start of this thread
(http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/581115 ), I proposed 4
alternatives to Davide's original timerfd API. Based on the feedback in
that thread (and one or two earlier comments):
Let's dismiss option (a), since it is an unlovely multiplexing interface.
Option (b) seems a viable. The most notable concern was from Thomas
Gleixner, that we might end up duplicating code from the POSIX timers API
within the timerfd API -- some eventual refactoring might mitigate this
problem.
Option (c) seems overly complex. In addition, David Härdeman pointed out
that option (c) (and, I realised afterwards, option (d)) require the
userland programmer to maintain a mapping between timerfd file descriptors
and POSIX timer IDs. Thomas Gleixner proposed an API that: attempts to
avoid that problem; mixes features of options (c) and (d); and probably
helps avoid redundancy of kernel code between the timerfd system and the
POSIX timers system. I'll flesh out that API now as I understand it:
====> e) Integrate timerfd() with the POSIX timers API in such a way that
the POSIX timers API understands timerfd file descriptors.
Under the POSIX timers API, a new timer is created using:
int timer_create(clockid_t clockid, struct sigevent *evp,
timer_t *timerid);
When making this call, we would specify evp.sigev_notify to a new flag
value SIGEV_TIMERFD, to inform the system that this timer will deliver
notification via a timerfd file descriptor.
We would then have a timerfd() call that returns a file descriptor
for the newly created 'timerid':
fd = timerfd(timer_t timerid);
(A variant here would be to have timer_create() directly return a file
descriptor when SIGEV_TIMERFD is specified, although this breaks the
traditional semantics that timer_create() only returns 0 on success.)
We could then use the POSIX timers API to operate on the timer
(start it / modify it / fetch timer value):
int timer_settime(timer_t timerid, int flags,
const struct itimerspec *value,
struct itimerspec *ovalue);
int timer_gettime(timer_t timerid, struct itimerspec *value);
The difference here is that 'timerid' could be either:
1) the timerid value returned from timer_create(); or
2) the value (fd | POSIX_TIMER_FD), where POSIX_TIMER_FD is a
flag (perhaps the topmost bit set on) that indicates that
the rest of the value is a file descriptor. With this
information, the kernel can do a lookup to find the
corresponding timerfd and perform the required operation
on it.
Advantages:
1. Userland programs don't need to maintain a mapping between
timer IDs and file descriptors.
2. Adds just a single system call.
Disadvantages:
1. This design stretches the POSIX timers API in strange
ways. My option (d) also did this to a lesser extent,
and that felt slightly uncomfortable. Option (e)
makes more uncomfortable still. As David Härdeman
pointed out, overloading file descriptors with flags looks
ugly, and I can't thing of any other syscall that does
that. In addition this idea probably breaks POSIX, since
'timer_t' is only required to be an arithmetic type: it
need not specifically be an integer type (although it is
on Linux).
=====
The upshot is that of the 5 alternatives, I favor option (b). David
Härdeman also expressed a preference for option (b) and it was Davide's
least disliked alternative ;-).
So I'm inclined to implement option (b), unless someone has strong
objections. Davide, could I persuade you to help?
Cheers,
Michael
--
Michael Kerrisk
maintainer of Linux man pages Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7
Want to help with man page maintenance? Grab the latest tarball at
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/docs/manpages/
read the HOWTOHELP file and grep the source files for 'FIXME'.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-09-22 13:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-09-18 7:27 RFC: A revised timerfd API Michael Kerrisk
2007-09-18 7:30 ` Michael Kerrisk
2007-09-18 8:05 ` David Härdeman
2007-09-18 9:01 ` Michael Kerrisk
2007-09-18 9:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-09-18 9:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-09-18 9:30 ` Michael Kerrisk
2007-09-18 9:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-09-18 11:08 ` Michael Kerrisk
2007-09-18 11:30 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-09-18 13:13 ` David Härdeman
2007-09-22 13:03 ` Michael Kerrisk
2007-09-18 16:51 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-09-22 13:12 ` Michael Kerrisk [this message]
2007-09-22 14:32 ` Bernd Eckenfels
2007-09-22 16:07 ` Michael Kerrisk
2007-09-22 17:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-09-22 23:37 ` David Härdeman
2007-09-22 17:10 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-09-22 21:07 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-09-22 21:26 ` Thomas Gleixner
2007-09-22 23:21 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-09-23 17:33 ` Michael Kerrisk
2007-09-23 18:33 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-09-23 18:41 ` Davide Libenzi
2007-09-23 19:03 ` Michael Kerrisk
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=46F514C9.5010208@gmx.net \
--to=mtk-manpages@gmx.net \
--cc=Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=david@hardeman.nu \
--cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=drepper@redhat.com \
--cc=geoff@gclare.org.uk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=vda.linux@googlemail.com \
/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