From owner-freebsd-current Sun Jan 12 3:51:55 2003 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03FA537B401; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 03:51:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from gateway.posi.net (adsl-63-201-91-32.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.201.91.32]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE15B43FA3; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 03:51:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kbyanc@posi.net) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gateway.posi.net (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0CBpEAl027360; Sun, 12 Jan 2003 03:51:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kbyanc@posi.net) Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2003 03:51:14 -0800 (PST) From: Kelly Yancey To: Trish Lynch Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" , Peter Wemm , , Subject: Re: Serious issues with kqueue on sockets on CURRENT. In-Reply-To: <20030111194549.V758-100000@femme> Message-ID: <20030112034405.F27352-100000@gateway.posi.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Trish Lynch wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > > > Peter, reverting the revisions below *does* fix the problem. Tim has an > > alternative patch, though. At any rate, it seems kbyanc's solution was > > overly simplistic. But things are broken either way, and I'm not sure > > Tim's patch doesn't result in the kind of situation rev 1.134 tried to > > fix, nor if his patch actually gets all cases of the bug that results > > from 1.134. > > > > At any rate, I think that not receiving any event (after 1.134) is worse > > than receiving and event claim to have more bytes than are actually > > available (pre 1.134). It's not just Juli who have this problem. > > AilleCat, for instance, once she heard on irc that kq had a problem, > > tracked the problem *she* was having to the same place. > > > > Yes, this is correct, some events weren't being triggered and now, with > reverting back (with some of the current changes like the aesthetic change > to soo_kqfilter instead of sokqfilter,) now our application that relies > upon kqueue for scheduling runs about twice as fast.... > > Maxim gave me a patch that accomplishes exactly what I did by hand... but > it also leaves it in a state that it was before 1.134 where there were > some problems that were supposed to be fixed in 1.134 and after... however > IMO its *less* broken :) > > Anyway, since my understanding of this is much less than anyone else I'm > inclined to go with whatever solution actually makes the events trigger > for us :) > > I'm not a kernel programmer, nor will I ever be, I just know that > reverting uipc_socket.c did solve some major problems I was having :) > > -Trish > I'm sorry, I'm afraid I am not familiar with the issue being discussed. Is there a PR I can reference for more information? Exactly what events aren't being received? Being as the logic for when to return a kevent as of uipc_socket.c:1.136 is exactly the same as before (just the data value in the kevent is different), I can't see how any events could *not* be returned that weren't returned before. But then again, without knowing the symptoms you are seeing, I can't say for sure. Kelly -- Kelly Yancey -- kbyanc@{posi.net,FreeBSD.org} Visit the BSD driver database: http://www.posi.net/freebsd/drivers/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message