From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 17 12:00:42 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66FC316A4CE; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from canning.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A6D43D45; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:00:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@evilpete.dyndns.org) Received: from fw.wemm.org (canning.wemm.org [192.203.228.65]) by canning.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE7F2A8D5; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:00:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@overcee.wemm.org) Received: from overcee.wemm.org (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by fw.wemm.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBE2EE259; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:00:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@overcee.wemm.org) Received: from overcee.wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.wemm.org (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i3HIxorI036217; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:59:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@overcee.wemm.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by overcee.wemm.org (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i3HIxogW036216; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:59:50 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter) From: Peter Wemm To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:59:50 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.1 References: <200404170513.i3H5DDgq033705@green.homeunix.org> In-Reply-To: <200404170513.i3H5DDgq033705@green.homeunix.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200404171159.50311.peter@wemm.org> cc: arch@freebsd.org cc: Garrett Wollman Subject: Re: kqueue giant-locking (&kq_Giant, locking) X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:00:42 -0000 On Friday 16 April 2004 10:13 pm, Brian F. Feldman wrote: > Garrett Wollman wrote: > > In article <200404170330.i3H3Ul0t032543@green.homeunix.org> you write: > > >I can't imagine a well-designed applications has kqueues of > > > kqueues. > > > > I can in about five seconds' worth of thought. > > > > Suppose you have library X. It accomplishes some task > > asynchronously (it doesn't matter what or how), and provides a > > descriptor that the calling application must poll for completion. > > Now use that library into an application that has its own event > > loop. > > > > This is one of the specific motivating examples behind doing kqueue > > rather than simply extending poll() or select(). Please go and > > read the papers before you continue down this path. > > Contrived. Let's see one. There won't be any -- they will be using > threads, not kqueues, because threads work on more than one system. Actually no. We do this sort of nesting at work. And we don't use threads. Its not a contrived example. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5