KWIG Qt->Gtk porting layer and merging main loops.
otaylor at redhat.com
Tue Nov 2 03:52:25 EET 2004
On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 00:59 +0100, Magnus Bergman wrote:
> > Quick summary:
> > libevent is seriously too simple:
> > - Not thread safe
> True. But I'm not convinced that it's impossible to implement thread
> safety on top libevent quite easily. But better yet, libevent could be
> fixed to handle threads.
Thread safety means being to do things like have an event loop running
in one thread and add an idle function in another thread, and have the
other thread notice the new idle and fire it at the earliest
> > - Doesn't support multiple independent main contexts
> Couldn't that be implemented on top of one main context? Perhaps it
> would be inefficient (I'm not familiar with the exact implementation of
> glib) but I'm not convinced it would be impossible.
It would be very hard to implement it on top of one main context and
keep things efficient. Consider two threads, with two main contexts,
each with one fd, where the main loops are run
1 A ---------------------------- C
2 B ------------------------------ D
At point A you have to add fd1 to the libevent, at point B add fd2, at
point C remove fd1, at point D remove fd2.
That's a little inefficient. Imagine if each context had 100 fds?
You can't just leave all the fds in the poll all the time, because
the poll will be woken up prematurely if there is data waiting in
an active fd.
> > - Fails the "can you write an X event source as a callback" test
> > (Requires special handling because XPending() can become true
> > between calls to select())
> I don't know what that's about, but I assume it's an API that requires
> expicit polling (reading the state of some shared memory perhaps?). But
> as long as it isn't something beyond my imagination this could be
> implemented using a timer with libevent as well as using timeout to
> select()/poll() directly, without libevent. (Or perhaps using the alarm
> signal.) For there isn't really an alternative to way do it, is there?
Somewhat simplified, XLib has three relevant primitives:
XPending() - are there events waiting
XNextEvent() - give me the next event
ConnectionNumber() - give me the file descriptor for incoming events
The thing you have to deal with is that XLib has an internal queue
of events. So, polling on ConnectionNumber() can block even if
XPending() would return TRUE. The event loop needs to make sure it
calls XPending() before starting to poll.
Could you redesign XLib to prevent this problem? Yes, add a callback
when XPending goes from FALSE to TRUE. But that's not really an
option we have in general.
There are workarounds you could come up with, but they all are going
to cause considerably performance damage to the central operation of
a GUI app. And XLib isn't the only library with this type of API.
> > I'm not arguing that you need the level API complexity of GMainLoop,
> > but anything that wouldn't allow that level of complexity to be
> > be built on top isn't usable.
> True. But the only thing that needs to be common is the call to
> select()/poll() and a way to register low level events (the three types
> of them). Completely different things could be implemented on top of
> this and work together nicely, which is the one and only problem that
> needs to be solved, right?
I don't think so. Let me describe just one of the other issues you would
face - priorities. GLib can have priorities where, for two, say, file
descriptor watch, the lower priority one will never be called as long
as there is data on the higher priority.
Building GLib on top of a low-level libevent isn't hard basically, you
end up treating the underlying main loop as a user space poll(), and
set flags from callbacks. Using other libevent programs with this GLib
main loop works "OK" ... you just get side effects when GLib calls the
But the other way doesn't work well. Another app runs the main loop,
and GLib gets a callback from libevent for fd_low. Without knowing the
poll() results for fd_high, GLib doesn't know whether to call the
Does that mean that you can't build GLib on top of a simpler loop? No.
But it's going to have to export something more like the GLib GSource
API with the prepare/check/dispatch stages than a simple "add a callback
for this API"
GLib's main loop has a lot of careful thinking in it making it a
universal main loop. I suspect a good libevent that really met all the
necesary requirements would look a lot like GMainLoop, stripped of the
GLib and without some of the design flaws (e.g. g_main_looop_query())
I guess the onus is on me to write up something explaining GMainLoop
from a main loop designers point of view. :-)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/attachments/20041101/dd3c04c2/attachment.pgp
More information about the xdg