From: Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@euromail.se>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@nokia.com>,
Benjamin Tissoires <tissoire@cena.fr>,
Rafi Rubin <rafi@seas.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] input: evdev: Use multi-reader buffer to save space (rev5)
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:19:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C24ACE2.5000307@euromail.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100625081445.GA8546@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:11:47AM +0200, Henrik Rydberg wrote:
>> Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>
>>> Overall I am starting getting concerned about proper isolation between
>>> clients. Right now, if one client stops reading events and another one
>>> issues grab then the first client will only get events that were
>>> accumulated before grab tookm place. With the new shared buffer the
>>> first client may get "grabbed" events if it stop for long enough for
>>> buffer to wrap around.
>> Doing some research, the semantics of ioctl have obviously been discussed
>> before, and I believe this points to another such issue. When grabbing a device,
>> are we guaranteeing that the device no longer sends events to other clients, or
>> are we guaranteeing that other clients can no longer read the device? If the
>> latter, clearing all client buffers in conjunction with a grab would be
>> appropriate, and would solve this issue.
>
>
> Yes, I think it would be acceptable approach.
>
>>> Do we really same that much memory here? We normally do not have that
>>> many users connected to event devices at once...
>> Ok, let's scratch this. Although I think the idea of multi-reader buffers is
>> sound, it is obviously sufficiently incompatible with the current approach to
>> produce distastefully complex patches. I will return with a new set which only
>> fixes the buffer resize problem, and leaves the rest for later.
>>
>
> Right, let's merge this and also MT slots and revisit this issue at some
> later point.
Sounds good. I just resent the main MT patches, adding some more Cc:s, and to
make sure we both have the same version. :-) Regarding the ioctl stuff for MT
slots, I did not send those again, I am not sure what to do with them.
Thanks,
Henrik
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-25 13:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-20 18:48 [PATCH] input: evdev: Use multi-reader buffer to save space (rev5) Henrik Rydberg
2010-06-23 6:19 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2010-06-23 8:11 ` Henrik Rydberg
2010-06-25 8:14 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2010-06-25 13:19 ` Henrik Rydberg [this message]
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=4C24ACE2.5000307@euromail.se \
--to=rydberg@euromail.se \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.kuoppala@nokia.com \
--cc=rafi@seas.upenn.edu \
--cc=tissoire@cena.fr \
/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