From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST,HTML_MESSAGE, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 814c895d for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 18:46:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C1AC694676; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 04:46:49 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADF4694666; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 04:46:10 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="elV1XJss"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7FE8794666; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 04:46:07 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-wm1-f52.google.com (mail-wm1-f52.google.com [209.85.128.52]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F99F93D29 for ; Sat, 12 Jan 2019 04:46:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-wm1-f52.google.com with SMTP id m22so3349523wml.3 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:46:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=a2KTEg93k1SDMiHX3JQucHI1s/CqA0nKBVkTprVmj8U=; b=elV1XJssIFUrq/JdwT7zvJZlgR9IajpARt1GHdUGLXVI6SMR3F+4COHQbbl2+rKcLX CwemHYsT3VixF0RQI0ZkqQkyYIqRYge5ymHfHawAm7oQ+V94Q7/ki/EXFRvDbjMuDPJ9 /TTsiGHBhqJPS5h74v+duBlT8oHdeUSV7+pPA= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=a2KTEg93k1SDMiHX3JQucHI1s/CqA0nKBVkTprVmj8U=; b=JZpSFFeWW+bWjTSFCGYx9aaEj4tOVAi4/mnOvyQU+DZlcAlaUVTg15IsAxPB1J29tD iKAesCXbyb3bCnROgaAPN6rOPtLedNy8wLErd5BPJPB7W9QuZhkD94ndZnrqQfnnZJ8+ b7oKoRxeoogUrXgfajz1/7rHFaiXRnuaOsMT2uLrlOj1BFg92hxALrdVU5hkh5P54Urr Ay4OhtPZ7IvG+jMbrUq8LJg8VtzTBBNhDYBQYSoJ6clTS1+pa2HYghgnopECSRqFM+24 4wGqJCjqPJYlvc2QMwr6VV5aKcTljAXPhnVYZ7+rfMkvX4jnjKIoJdQbLYk4TP+EQ+In iZdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukfWyF6t0DxS7BJoL2wC2s9wHBLuBE33k+80fmeNmHmPh/57Iw6g lU7P8Q2uY529wM3veI8vVRrzR/HeMj/CBd7n1dnSWA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4zBbaNgj1winZ0gwIiTBNlQWKLtnVnMWP2HR5QX4hfczWQnUvDHZF04GdEBmWHBCcM0N16uxdFKUdQ+rcwXyo= X-Received: by 2002:a1c:1383:: with SMTP id 125mr3413344wmt.71.1547232365030; Fri, 11 Jan 2019 10:46:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <39F862F7-7C4B-4A09-B838-942BE0FD2626@planet.nl> <1581c01d4a9c2$ffed5340$ffc7f9c0$@ronnatalie.com> In-Reply-To: <1581c01d4a9c2$ffed5340$ffc7f9c0$@ronnatalie.com> From: Clem Cole Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 13:45:39 -0500 Message-ID: To: Ronald Natalie Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000080d602057f331b44" Subject: Re: [TUHS] V6 networking & alarm syscall X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list , Paul Ruizendaal Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000080d602057f331b44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 10:34 AM wrote: > A bigger networking issue was select() (or the like). It used to be an > interesting kludge of running two processes inorder to do simoultaneous > read/write before that. > Right and select(2) was created by Sam and wnj during the 4.2 development. I've forgotten which sub-version (it was in 4.1c, but it might have been in b or a before that). There was a lot of arguing at the time about it's need; the multiple process solution was considered more 'Unix-like.' I remember one time have a few beers in my apartment with Sam while watching a football game and arguing about its usefulness. Adding select(2) was an example of where CSRG was adding things to UNIX for the DARPA community. IIRC: previous PDP-10 system had something like it and of course VMS had qio() which did not block; some of the users at an advisors meeting had wanted some alaong. I also remember after it ws prototyped, some people complaining that with select(2) people would start to right code that looped and waste cycles. BTW: sure enough, about a year or two later, X-Windows appears with its keyboard/mouse loop. The argument on a workstation (personal computer) was it did not matter. The argument on a vax or other typeshared machine, was that the CPU was being wasted and any type polling loop in users space was a bad idea. FWIW: a few years later, System V (I think SRV3, but I've forgotten) introd= uced poll(2) as a reaction to BSD's select(2). [IMO: That was NIH if I ever saw it - similar but different because they could]. Clem =E1=90=A7 --00000000000080d602057f331b44 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 1= 0:34 AM <ron@ronnatalie.com>= ; wrote:
= A bigger networking issue was select() (or the like= ).=C2=A0 =C2=A0 It used to be an
interesting kludge of running two processes inorder to do simoultaneous
read/write before that.
Right and select(2) was created by Sam and wnj during the 4.2 developm= ent.=C2=A0 I've forgotten which sub-version (it was in 4.1c, but it mig= ht have been in b or a before that).=C2=A0 There was a lot of arguing at th= e time about it's need;=C2=A0 the multiple process solution was conside= red more 'Unix-like.'=C2=A0 =C2=A0I remember one time have a few be= ers in my apartment with Sam while watching a football game and arguing abo= ut its usefulness.=C2=A0 Adding select(2)=C2=A0=C2=A0was an ex= ample of where CSRG was adding things to UNIX for the DARPA co= mmunity.=C2=A0 =C2=A0IIRC: previous PDP-10 system had something like it and= of course VMS had qio() which did not block; some of the users at an a= dvisors meeting had wanted some alaong.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I also remember= after it ws prototyped, some=C2=A0people complaining that with = select(2) people would start to right code that looped and waste cycles.=C2= =A0 BTW: sure enough, about a year or two later, X-Windows appea= rs with its keyboard/mouse loop.=C2=A0 The argument on a workstation (perso= nal computer) was it did not matter.=C2=A0 The argument on a vax or other t= ypeshared machine, was that the CPU was being wasted and any type polli= ng loop in users space was a bad idea.=C2=A0=C2=A0
=
FWIW: a few years later,=C2=A0System V (I think SRV3, = but I've forgotten)=C2=A0introduced poll(2) as a reaction to= BSD's select(2).=C2=A0 =C2=A0[IMO: That was NIH if I ever saw it - sim= ilar but different because they could].

C= lem
3D""=E1=90=A7
--00000000000080d602057f331b44--