From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [take25 1/6] kevent: Description. Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:14:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20061124001412.371ec4e7.akpm@osdl.org> References: <11641265982190@2ka.mipt.ru> <456621AC.7000009@redhat.com> <45662522.9090101@garzik.org> <45663298.7000108@redhat.com> <45664160.6060504@cosmosbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ulrich Drepper , Jeff Garzik , Evgeniy Polyakov , David Miller , netdev , Zach Brown , Christoph Hellwig , Chase Venters , Johann Borck , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.25]:37092 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755791AbWKXIQU (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Nov 2006 03:16:20 -0500 To: Eric Dumazet In-Reply-To: <45664160.6060504@cosmosbay.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:48:32 +0100 Eric Dumazet wrote: > > The alternative is the sorry state we have now. In nscd, for instance, > > we have one single thread waiting for incoming connections and it then > > has to wake up a worker thread to handle the processing. This is done > > because we cannot "park" all threads in the accept() call since when a > > new connection is announced _all_ the threads are woken. With the new > > event handling this wouldn't be the case, one thread only is woken and > > we don't have to wake worker threads. All threads can be worker threads. > > Having one specialized thread handling the distribution of work to worker > threads is better most of the time. It might be now. Think "commodity 128-way". Your single distribution thread will run out of steam. What Ulrich is proposing is faster. This is a new interface. Let's design it to be fast.