Re: RFC: [Restatement] KBUS messaging subsystem

Pekka Enberg
2011-08-03T20:48:32Z

Hi Tony,

Your description doesn't really explain what you want to use this
thing exactly for in userspace.

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Tony Ibbs <tibs@tonyibbs.co.uk> wrote:
> So why did we write it as a kernel module?
> ==========================================
> As implementors, a kernel module makes a lot of sense. Not least
> because:
>
> * It gives us a lot of things for free, including list handling,
>  reference counting, thread safety and (on larger systems)
>  multi-processor support, which we would otherwise have to write and
>  debug ourselves. This also keeps our codebase smaller.

That's not a reason to put this into the kernel, really.

> * It helps give us reliability, partly because of the code we're
>  relying on, partly because of the strictures of working in the
>  kernel, partly by shielding us from userspace.

So now instead of crashing in userspace, we crash the kernel? This
seems like a bogus argument as well.

> * It reduces message copying (we have userspace to kernel back to
>  userspace, as opposed to a userspace daemon communicating with
>  clients via sockets)

Now this sounds like a real reason but you'd have to explain why you
can't reuse existing zero-copy mechanisms like splice() and tee().

> * It makes it simple for us to tell when a message recipient has "gone
>  away", as the kernel will call our "release" callback for us.

Again, sounds like a reasonable technical requirement but doesn't
really justify putting all this code into the kernel.

> * It allows us to provide the functionality on systems without
>  requiring anything much beyond /dev and maybe /proc in userspace.

Why is this important?

Pekka