From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 10 17:04:10 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: threads@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FD1E106566B for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:04:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61CE88FC13 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:04:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) by mail.netplex.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/NETPLEX) with ESMTP id o1AH49RC029979; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:04:09 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Message whitelisted by DRAC access database, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.10]); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:04:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:04:09 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Randall Stewart In-Reply-To: <3581A86D-9C9C-4E08-9AD3-CD550B180CED@lakerest.net> Message-ID: References: <3581A86D-9C9C-4E08-9AD3-CD550B180CED@lakerest.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thinking about kqueue's and pthread_cond_wait X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:04:10 -0000 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