Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 19 Oct 2007 15:14:26 +0200
From:      Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>
To:        Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc:        arch@freebsd.org, "Constantine A. Murenin" <cnst@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: sensors fun..
Message-ID:  <20071019151426.ttkynf788c0g8s4k@webmail.leidinger.net>
In-Reply-To: <82533.1192797289@critter.freebsd.dk>
References:  <82533.1192797289@critter.freebsd.dk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> (from Fri, 19 Oct 2007 =20
12:34:49 +0000):

> In message <20071019134842.rhlnbcqrbc4sc4o4@webmail.leidinger.net>,  =20
> Alexander L
> eidinger writes:
>
>>>> I was thinking you talk about the interface between the kernel and the
>>>> userland. Now I think that you talk more or less about something which
>>>> could be implemented e.g., as an userland library which not only polls
>>>> the kernel sensors framework, but provides the single-system sensor
>>>> data (and could be a base of a singe-system sensor daemon which feeds
>>>> its data to a group-level sensors framework). Does this sound like
>>>> what you have in mind?
>>>
>>> It certainly sounds more sensible.
>>
>> More sensible than what?
>
> Than the OpenBSD sensors concept

Constantines sensors framework is an implementation of the above =20
mentioned kernel sensors framework. How can the above description be =20
more sensible, when such an architecture is part of this description? =20
And related: you stated you haven't looked at the architecture behind =20
Constantines work because you don't like the idea itself. Do you have =20
now looked at the architecture, or how are you able to compare what is =20
written here with what is in Constantines work? If you have looked at =20
Constantines work now, could you please tell us about architectural =20
flaws which makes it not usable as a kernel sensors framework as =20
described above (the part which you called more sensible)?

>> What to do with sensors which aren't event based or don't have a
>> predefined polling interval (e.g., temperature and humidity)? What do
>> you think will the ratio be between the amount of sensors with and
>> without something like this?
>
> They poll at whatever rate the application ask them to, (using an
> ioctl ?)

So you want to put the polling interval (=3D the polling policy) into =20
the kernel (with e.g, an ioctl)?

What about the question about the rate between the number of sensors =20
with and without event driven notifications?

>> How is the kernel supposed to know what polling policy the user is
>> interested in (every 5sec/every minute/every 5 minutes/whatever)? Why
>> should this policy/procedure life in the kernel?
>
> Nobody said the policy should live in the kernel.

You wrote that an application can wait for an event with your approach =20
of using a fd. For event driven sensors I can see how this works =20
without putting the polling policy (the interval to poll) into the =20
kernel. For sensors which are not event driven, I fail to see how this =20
can be done without putting the polling policy (=3D the polling =20
interval) into the kernel. Would you please explain how an application =20
can wait for events from sensors which are not event driven without =20
putting the polling interval into the kernel? Related to this question =20
is the part about the ratio above.

I would also like to know how you want to limit the rate of =20
kernel->userland crossings for even driven notifications without =20
putting the polling policy into the kernel, when the users polling =20
policy doesn't need the possible higher rate of a sensors notification =20
interval (we don't want to make the system unusable when several =20
sensors send to much events, don't we?).

Bye,
Alexander.

--=20
Let thy maid servant be faithful, strong, and homely.
=09=09-- Benjamin Franklin

http://www.Leidinger.net    Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID =3D B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org       netchild @ FreeBSD.org  : PGP ID =3D 72077137



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071019151426.ttkynf788c0g8s4k>