Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:04:09 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thinking about kqueue's and pthread_cond_wait Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1002101202060.13656@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <3581A86D-9C9C-4E08-9AD3-CD550B180CED@lakerest.net> References: <3581A86D-9C9C-4E08-9AD3-CD550B180CED@lakerest.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Randall Stewart wrote:
> All:
>
> I have once again come around to thinking about joining pthread cond waits
> and
> kqueue's.
>
> After thinking about it, I think its doable.. with something like a:
>
> pthread_cond_wait_kqueue_np(kev, cond, mtx, ucontext)
>
> Then you can use kev inside a kqueue i.e.
> ret = kevent(kq, kev, 1, outkev, 1, NULL);
>
> Now when you saw the event:
> if (kev.filter == EVFILT_UMTX){ /* not sure about the name here */
> pthread_kqueue_cond_wait_ret_np(kev, cond, mtx, ucontext)
> do_user_action(cond,mtx, ucontext);
> }
>
> Which would fill in the cond/mtx and ucontext for the user.
>
> Now does this sound useful to anyone.. i.e. should I spend the time
> making it work?
>
> The only down side to this is that it would have to allocate memory so
> one would need to do a:
>
> pthread_kqueue_cond_wait_free_np(kev)
>
> After you were done.. and I think it would be best for this to
> be a ONE_SHOT.. i.e. you have to re-arm it if the event happens...
> Of course until you free it that can be as simple as passing the kev
> back down again (i.e. no pthread_cond_wait_kqueue_np() needed).
>
> Comments? Thoughts? i.e. especially is it worthwhile doing?
Please don't mess with the pthread_ API like that :-) If you
really want to munge them together, see my email to you a few
weeks ago last time you brought it up.
--
DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.1002101202060.13656>