From: Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: some Plan9 related ideas
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:03:22 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ee9e417a0510170603k1fc6728cjcf139dc12a1c041a@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051017124559.GB29494@server4.lensbuddy.com>
> > > I was reading old archives, and I'm probably a bit dense; but what is
> > > the reason to use the same tag for the three messages?
> > The reason is you don't have to wait for the response to the first
> > before sending the second and third, avoiding two round trip times.
> Yes, but what I didn't understand is why you needed to use the same tag,
> I thought you could do this without chaning the protocol.
I redefined use of the same tag to mean "you have to finish the
previous message with this tag before processing this message",
so that if you send a Topen followed by a Tread and the open
blocks for whatever reason (disk i/o, say), the remote server
doesn't try to run the Tread and send back a "fid not in use"
error or some such.
> Could you explain with more detail how it would work from the (threaded)
> server POV? I was thinking that the server could use the fid to avoid
> threads stepping into each other, and still avoid having to change the
> protocol at all...
The threaded server would just have a list of requests associated with
each tag instead of a single request. When it finishes one it can move
on to the next.
Under the current protocol you are not allowed to send a Tread request
using a fid that the server has not acknowleged via Rattach or Ropen.
So your approach still requires redefining the protocol. Also I might have
multiple I/Os going on and not care what order they get handled.
Synchronization based on the fid changes current situations. Basing it
on the tag uses what were previously illegal situations.
> And I'm still curious what kernel changes nemo was talking about.
Read his post where he talks about mount -U.
If you mean readf and writef, those weren't kernel changes.
They were the obvious library wrappers.
Russ
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-17 13:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-08-29 23:23 [9fans] " Bhanu Nagendra Pisupati
2005-08-30 12:27 ` Sape Mullender
2005-08-30 15:21 ` Francisco Ballesteros
2005-08-30 15:25 ` Francisco Ballesteros
2005-08-30 17:07 ` [9fans] " Dave Eckhardt
2005-08-30 17:33 ` Francisco Ballesteros
2005-08-30 17:46 ` Russ Cox
2005-08-31 5:54 ` [9fans] tcs bug arisawa
2005-08-31 5:57 ` Rob Pike
2005-10-17 7:14 ` [9fans] Re: some Plan9 related ideas Uriel
2005-10-17 11:23 ` Russ Cox
2005-10-17 12:45 ` Uriel
2005-10-17 13:03 ` Russ Cox [this message]
2005-10-17 13:22 ` Uriel
2005-10-17 15:14 ` Russ Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ee9e417a0510170603k1fc6728cjcf139dc12a1c041a@mail.gmail.com \
--to=rsc@swtch.com \
--cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).