Re: light weight user level semaphores

[Alon Ziv]

From: "David Howells" <[e-mail]>
> David Woodhouse <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > [e-mail] said:
> > >  [BTW, another solution is to truly support opaque "handles" to kernel
> > > objects; I believe David Howells is already working on something like
> > > this for Wine?
>
> Yes. However, it uses a different system call set to use them. They
translate
> to small object structures internally.
>

Obviously... since they're handles, not FDs...
[BTW, are you using Windows' idea of storing the objects in process space,
in a
page that's inaccessible to the app itself, and passing pointers into this
page
as the handles?]

> > > The poll interface can be trivially extended to support
> > > waiting on those...]
>
> No, they aren't files. I did not want to use "files" because this would
incur
> a fairly major penalty for each object:
>
So what if they aren't files?
If you look at (e.g.) AIX's poll(), it allows you to put SysV semaphore IDs
in
pollfd structures. (Actually they do even more--- they have an extended
pollfd
struct; but even without it, just putting a handle instead of FD and a
special
event code in a normal pollfd should suffice...)

> struct file + struct dentry + struct inode
>
> Which would mean that Win32 File objects would require two of each, one
set to
> hold the extra Win32 attributes and one set for the actual Linux file.
>

I'm afraid I'm not following your logic in this; I believe most Win32 attrs
can
be mapped to more generic abstractions which should be able to exist at
'struct
file' level.  (And even if not, a Win32 file handle could just hold two
pointers---
one to the 'struct file', and one to the extra attrs...)

> The way I've chosen uses somewhat less memory and should be faster.
>

And breaks _completely_ with the existing scheme :-/

> > ISTR it wasn't quite trivial to do it that way - it would require the
> > addition of an extra argument to the fops->poll() method.
>
> Yes, the PulseEvent operation demands that all processes currently waiting
on
> the event should be woken, but that no processes attaching immediately
> afterward get triggered.
>

Huh? Where did you get this?
Looking at my copy of MSDN (July '00), the PulseEvent remarks more-or-less
suggest
an implementation like
    SetEvent(e)
    ResetEvent(e)
I don't see any mention of 'currently waiting' vs 'new' waiters. (Besides, I
doubt MS
tries to solve this in the SMP case...)

> Oh... and WaitForMultipleObjects also has a "wait for all" option.

Yes, this is a valid point...  I wonder if it's possible to add _just_ this
to
poll()...

    -az