* Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > [...] 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. Btw., there's another optimization that the networking code already does when processing incoming packets: waking up a thread on the local CPU, where the wakeup is running. Doing the same on epoll would have real scalability advantages where incoming events are IRQ driven and are distributed amongst multiple CPUs. Where events are task driven the scheduler will already try to pair up waker and wakee so it might not show up in measurements that markedly. Thanks, Ingo -- 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
