On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:40:19PM -0800, Andy Zhou wrote: > > Poll group is a new poll class that sits between application and > > the stream class. Poll group compliments the poll loop facility and the > > stream class to make main loop more efficient when dealing with > > large number of current connections. > > > > See comments in poll-group-provider.h for more details. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Zhou <az...@ovn.org> > > Usually we build a provider interface when we expect there to be more > than one implementation on a given platform. For example, netdevs have > a provider interface because a single system might have system network > devices, and DPDK network devices, and tunnel network devices, and so > on. Similarly, dpifs have a provider interface because a single system > can have netlink and netdev dpifs at the same time. > > But in other cases we don't have a provider interface even though there > is implementation diversity, because a given system has only one > implementation and we know which one it is at compile time. The daemon and > latch libraries are examples. > > Do we expect there to be more than one implementation of poll groups on > a given system?
I have planed a 'generic' poll group implementation that is not platform specific. It uses the same poll group API, but makes changes to poll_block internals to help deliver changed fd sets. The 'generic' version is not posted since it will add more infrastructure changes and epoll() seems to yield the most benefits for Linux. I should have mentioned about this in the commit message. On the other hand, If we decide to drop the idea of implementing the 'generic" poll group, then I'd agree we should also drop the provider API. > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
