* Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So in the case of multiple threads per epoll set, we > currently add to the head of wakeup queue exclusively in > 'epoll_wait()', and then subsequently remove from the > queue once 'epoll_wait()' returns. So I don't think this > patch addresses balancing on a per epoll set basis. Okay, so I was confused about how the code works. > I think we could address the case you describe by simply > doing __add_wait_queue_tail_exclusive() instead of > __add_wait_queue_exclusive() in epoll_wait(). [...] Yes. > [...] However, I think the userspace API change is less > clear since epoll_wait() doesn't currently have an > 'input' events argument as epoll_ctl() does. ... but the change would be a bit clearer and somewhat more flexible: LIFO or FIFO queueing, right? But having the queueing model as part of the epoll context is a legitimate approach as well. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
