On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:25 AM, Alexey Borzenkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> + backend_fudge = 1e-3;
>
This helps with CPU load but it still causes ev_timer(0) to issue
ev_sleep(>0) which puts the process to sleep.
However, for ev_timer with AT = 0, the guarantee that the timers are only
executed after AT seconds is passed is satisfied immediately, and thus there
is no need to sleep.
It is possible to use ev_timer(-1) but that's not as clear as ev_timer(0).
What do you think about making a special case for ev_timer(at=0)?
Here's a possible patch:
diff -r 4e6eab41f320 libev/ev.c
--- a/libev/ev.c Thu Jun 02 21:03:56 2011 +0200
+++ b/libev/ev.c Thu Jun 02 21:47:49 2011 +0200
@@ -2241,9 +2241,12 @@
/* first reschedule or stop timer */
if (w->repeat)
{
- ev_at (w) += w->repeat;
+ if (ev_at(w))
+ ev_at (w) += w->repeat;
+ else
+ ev_at (w) = mn_now + w->repeat;
if (ev_at (w) < mn_now)
- ev_at (w) = mn_now;
+ ev_at (w) = mn_now;
assert (("libev: negative ev_timer repeat value found while
processing timers", w->repeat > 0.));
@@ -2761,7 +2764,8 @@
if (expect_false (ev_is_active (w)))
return;
- ev_at (w) += mn_now;
+ if (ev_at(w))
+ ev_at (w) += mn_now;
assert (("libev: ev_timer_start called with negative timer repeat value",
w->repeat >= 0.));
@@ -2802,7 +2806,8 @@
}
}
- ev_at (w) -= mn_now;
+ if (ev_at(w))
+ ev_at (w) -= mn_now;
ev_stop (EV_A_ (W)w);
@@ -2837,7 +2842,9 @@
ev_tstamp
ev_timer_remaining (EV_P_ ev_timer *w)
{
- return ev_at (w) - (ev_is_active (w) ? mn_now : 0.);
+ if (ev_at(w))
+ return ev_at (w) - (ev_is_active (w) ? mn_now : 0.);
+ return 0.;
}
#if EV_PERIODIC_ENABLE
_______________________________________________
libev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
