From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [take22 0/4] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism. Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 07:02:49 -0500 Message-ID: <455075E9.4080202@garzik.org> References: <1154985aa0591036@2ka.mipt.ru> <1162380963981@2ka.mipt.ru> <20061101130614.GB7195@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <20061101132506.GA6433@2ka.mipt.ru> <20061101160551.GA2598@elf.ucw.cz> <20061101162403.GA29783@2ka.mipt.ru> <20061101185745.GA12440@2ka.mipt.ru> <5c49b0ed0611011812w8813df3p830e44b6e87f09f4@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov , LKML , Oleg Verych , Pavel Machek , David Miller , Ulrich Drepper , Andrew Morton , netdev , Zach Brown , Christoph Hellwig , Chase Venters , Johann Borck Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:20409 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754210AbWKGMC7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Nov 2006 07:02:59 -0500 To: Nate Diller In-Reply-To: <5c49b0ed0611011812w8813df3p830e44b6e87f09f4@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Nate Diller wrote: > Indesiciveness has certainly been an issue here, but I remember akpm > and Ulrich both giving concrete suggestions. I was particularly > interested in Andrew's request to explain and justify the differences > between kevent and BSD's kqueue interface. Was there a discussion > that I missed? I am very interested to see your work on this > mechanism merged, because you've clearly emphasized performance and > shown impressive results. But it seems like we lose out on a lot by > throwing out all the applications that already use kqueue. kqueue looks pretty nice, the filter/note models in particular. I don't see anything about ring buffers though. I also wonder about the asynchronous event side (send), not just the event reception side. Jeff