Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:30:27 +0000 (GMT) From: Rui Paulo <rpaulo@me.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r278479 - in head: etc sys/kern Message-ID: <8e5503e1-755c-49e4-ab4d-a0ad1ae91f97@me.com>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
On Feb 10, 2015, at 07:37 AM, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: That wasn't really my question. My question was if we want distinct streams or if we want want unified stream. Having a unified stream might very well make sense (and if so we could rename devd to make that more obvious). I'm fine with renaming devd to eventd or something else, but Ian was saying that he's worried about the number of notifications that devd has to process. I'm not sure that's a real problem at this point, though. On freefall, devd used 0.07 seconds of CPU time and has been running for a 1 day and a half. On my BeagleBone, devd used 0.61 seconds of CPU time and it has been up for 5 days and a half. On my VM that has been up for 5 days and a half, it used 4 seconds of CPU time. Renaming sounds like a good idea and it looks like we could leave the optimisations to a later time. Another thing I had in mind (which is more work) was to abstract the devctl kernel code in an API which could make it easy to fan out the notifications to multiple /dev devices. However, that may be overkill.help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8e5503e1-755c-49e4-ab4d-a0ad1ae91f97>