Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:06:41 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Thinking about kqueue's and pthread_cond_wait Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.64.1002101401460.14317@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20100210185746.GC71374@elvis.mu.org> References: <3581A86D-9C9C-4E08-9AD3-CD550B180CED@lakerest.net> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1002101202060.13656@sea.ntplx.net> <3CF3033E-FD13-405B-9DC6-DDE9DF4FBF37@lakerest.net> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1002101232240.13876@sea.ntplx.net> <07AA24BB-DA26-406A-B24F-59E0CB36FEBE@lakerest.net> <Pine.GSO.4.64.1002101331240.14115@sea.ntplx.net> <20100210185746.GC71374@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> [100210 10:50] wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Randall Stewart wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> while (notdone) {
>>> nev = kevent(kq, , ev);
>>> if (ev.fitler == EVFILTER_READ) {
>>> handle_the_read_thingy(ev);
>>> } else if (ev.filter == EVFILTER_COND) {
>>> lock_mutex(if needed)
>>> handle_condition_event();
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> One of the things I will note about a condition variable is that the
>>> downside is
>>> you ALWAYS have to have a mutex.. and not always do you need one... I have
>>> found
>>> multiple times in user apps where i am creating a mutex only for the
>>> benefit of
>>> the pthread_cond() api... sometimes just being woken up is enough ;-)
>>
>> [ I didn't see that you were waiting on multiple CVs... ]
>>
>> I don't understand why you need to wait on multiple
>> condition variables. Either way, you have to maintain
>> a queue of them along with their associated mutexes and
>> then take some action unique to each one of them. What
>> is the difference between that and maintaining a queue of
>> some other thingies that maintain similar state data?
>
> Developer convenience.
>
> If we offer a stable API and way of doing it right, then we offer
> a solid base for programs. By making users roll their own we have
> them duplicate code and introduce errors, in fact the idea of how
> to get this working (using a pipe(2) loop back) is so esoteric to
> likely block a significant portion of users from solving this problem
> at all.
See the proposed solution hacking the pthread API and think twice
about that.
If you need a generic way of waiting and waking threads in kevent,
then extend the kqueue/kevent interface to allow it. Add a userland
struct kq_wait object along with EVFILT_KQ_WAIT, and a syscall to
send wake up that event.
--
DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.64.1002101401460.14317>