Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:46:36 +0200
From:      Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
Cc:        Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [patch] turning devctl into a "multiple openable" device
Message-ID:  <20111130154636.GX50300@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
In-Reply-To: <201111301005.11938.jhb@freebsd.org>
References:  <20111130124320.GA1449@azathoth.lan> <201111301005.11938.jhb@freebsd.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--jwac3nLilAlTsrBW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:05:11AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:43:20 am Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >=20
> > With the help of cognet, I wrote a patch to turn devctl into a multiple=
 openable
> > device, that mean that it will allow to open /dev/devctl in multiple pr=
ograms,
> > for example hald and everythings that want to receive notification from=
 the
> > device won't need to depend on haveing devd running.
> >=20
> > here is the patch:=20
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/devctl_multi_open.diff
>=20
> Shouldn't devctl_queue_data_f() use the requested malloc() flags instead =
of
> hardcoding M_NOWAIT?
This is an obvious fallback of holding mutex around the call to
per_devctl_queue_data_f(), which caused the author a trouble to use
M_WAITOK.

Having n readers causes the patch to queue each message n times, that looks
like a waste.

I wonder why the waiting_threads stuff is needed at all. The cv could
be woken up unconditionally everytime. What is the reason for the cv_wait
call in cdevpriv data destructor ? You cannot have a thread doing e.g.
read on the file descriptor while destructor is run.

>=20
> Also, I know that it was an intentional design decisison by Warner to have
> the multiplexing of devctl data done in userland via devd rather than in =
the
> kernel.  (I think he envisioned devd providing a UNIX domain socket or so=
me
> such for other daemons to use to listen to events.)  Have you asked him a=
bout
> this change?
And I fully agree that doing multiplexing in user mode is the right approac=
h.
Not least because you could apply some advanced access control and provide
filtering for the consumers.

--jwac3nLilAlTsrBW
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk7WT9wACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4g5zwCg3MjdQJIZB4pmbmruWX2OEZnc
tHcAmQH6vh5NvQ3TGOTDZASNPdkDq73l
=TCaE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jwac3nLilAlTsrBW--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111130154636.GX50300>