Hello,
after some careful thinking I think I have pretty good idea of how to
handle sessions, demuxing and buffering. My solution is simple
enough; they should all be implemented in channels (as opposed to
being implemented in channelio.) This will be more general and give
the user more control. The downside is that it will be a bit more
unwieldy, almost every translator will introduce a chain of channels
at a time, instead of just one.
Multiplexors are primarily used to gain multiple sessions to exclusive
access devices and also balances io over sub-channels. E.g. they
multiplex in both directions.
Multiplexors are also useful to simply reduce the number of sessions,
as a multiplexor will have one session to each back-end and clients
will have one session each to the multiplexor. Contranst this with a
`file'-channel, where each client session reopens the file inorder to
forward the session accross the process boundary.
I have identified two generally useful multiplexors. The simpler one
I will just call a `tee'. It simply forwards each read and write to
it's children, to whichever is most responsive or cyclicly if they are
equally so. The figures below illustrates a read. A write would be
similar, just exchange the devices and clients.
Before After
|
----- | -----
( 1 ) | ( 1 )
----- | -----
+------+ / +------+ | +------+ \ +------+
|Device|----+ |Client| | |Device| +--->|Client|
+------+ | +---+ +------+ | +------+ +---+ | +------+
+===>|Tee| | |Tee|====+
+------+ | +---+ +------+ | +------+ +---+ | +------+
|Device|----+ |Client| | |Device| +--->|Client|
+------+ \ +------+ | +------+ / +------+
----- | -----
( 2 ) | ( 2 )
----- | -----
|
More interesting perhaps is a `broadcast' multiplexor, which forwards
any input to all it's children and output to all clients in the order
received. The broadcaster must be able to determine that all clients
receive the data which requires session data. The broadcast channel
can't be transfered to other processes without losing it's
broadcasting property.
Like above the following figure shows a read and a write just
exchanges the parties' positions.
Before After
|
----- | ----- -----
( 1 ) | ( 2 )( 1 )
----- | ----- -----
+------+ / +------+ | +------+ \/ +------+
|Device|----+ |Client| | |Device| +--->|Client|
+------+ | +---+ +------+ | +------+ +---+ | +------+
+===>|Tee| | |Tee|====+
+------+ | +---+ +------+ | +------+ +---+ | +------+
|Device|----+ |Client| | |Device| +--->|Client|
+------+ \ +------+ | +------+ /\ +------+
----- | ----- -----
( 2 ) | ( 2 )( 1 )
----- | ----- -----
|
With these two one can create a hybrid multiplexor that broadcasts
data to clients but alternates it between back-ends. This is done by
layering a broadcaster over a tee. Of course vice-versa is also
possible.
There are also other multiplexors that are conceivable, but they are
more domain specific. For instance, an audio multiplexor will need to
mix the incoming audio streams into a single one. This is the primary
reason why multiplexors can't be in channelio, it must be extensible
to handle these cases.
The main purpose of buffering is to limit the amount of IPC by
aggregating many small reads or writes to a large read or write. It
is complicated by the introduction of sessions, since different
sessions will get different data one buffer per session is needed. If
the buffer is a channel however, it can be put behind a multiplexor,
which only opens a single session.
So if Richard (or anybody else) doesn't object, I'll add the changes
required to implement sessions to the libchannel spec,
I've also been thinking if channels need to support multiple threads
operating it at the same time (e.g. one per session), perhaps even
allowing channels their own threads. This might be required to
implement multiplexors (in order to time-out unresponsive clients.)
That would require a lock in the channel struct, which libchannel code
must respect.
Regards,
Fredrik
_______________________________________________
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
