On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 06:30:27PM +0000, Rui Paulo wrote: > On Feb 10, 2015, at 07:37 AM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > That wasn't really my question. My question was if we want distinct streams > or if we want want unified stream. Having a unified stream might very well > make sense (and if so we could rename devd to make that more obvious). > > I'm fine with renaming devd to eventd or something else, but Ian was > saying that he's worried about the number of notifications that devd > has to process. I'm not sure that's a real problem at this point, > though. On freefall, devd used 0.07 seconds of CPU time and has > been running for a 1 day and a half. On my BeagleBone, devd used > 0.61 seconds of CPU time and it has been up for 5 days and a half. > On my VM that has been up for 5 days and a half, it used 4 seconds > of CPU time. Renaming sounds like a good idea and it looks like we > could leave the optimisations to a later time.
For common case (I am not talk about current devd implementation -- I am don't have any inforamtion/metrics/etc) routing and processing events may be sensitive to delay and ordering: may be exist requirement 'delay not more then 700ns', may be exist requirement 'next event process only after complete process previos event'. And some event handling may be very CPU/disk/etc consumption. Need to good think over and design API and architecure. _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
