Giampaolo Rodola' added the comment: > Do you mean at the C level?
No, Python of course. > poll(), unlike select(), does not have to scan an fd_set > (of 1024 bits?) so I would have expected it to be faster if anything. That might be true in a continuous loop (e.g. a reactor). Judging from where this is supposed to take place (http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/f6fcff683866/Lib/multiprocessing/connection.py#l865) what you would end up doing within the wait() function is: - init_pollster() - register(fd) * num of fds - unregister(fd) * num of fds - close_pollster() ...and I suspect that's likely to be slower than just using select(), even if you cache the poll object. Anyway, I might be wrong, and figuring that out with a simple benchmark is easy. Other than that I'm not sure how often wait() gets called usually so even if a slowdown is introduced that might not even be a problem. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue16269> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
