Martin Sustrik <sustrik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 09/02/13 04:54, Eric Wong wrote: > >>>Using one eventfd per userspace socket still seems a bit wasteful. > >> > >>Wasteful in what sense? Occupying a slot in file descriptor table? > >>That's the price for having the socket uniquely identified by the > >>fd. > > > >Yes. I realize eventfd is small, but I don't think eventfd is needed > >at all, here. Just one pipe. > > Ah. Got you! You mean not to change the kernel, just use pipe for > the purpose. > > However, the convoluted pipe-style design is the problem I am trying > to solve rather than the solution. It leads to convoluted APIs with > convoluted semantics as described in the article. I've been using > that kind of design for past 8 years and every time I have to deal > with it I swear that one day I will implement a proper in-kernel > solution to get rid of the hack. > > And now I have finally done so. Yes, your eventfd change is probably the best way if you want/need to only watch a subset of your sockets, especially if you want poll/select to be an option. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
