-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 25/11/2014 14:52, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > Do you think it is okay to forget about <1 ms timeout precision? > > If we go ahead with this, we'll need to rethink other timeouts in > QEMU. For example, is there a point in setting timer slack to 1 ns > if we cannot even specify ns wait times? > > Perhaps timerfd is needed before we can use epoll. Hopefully the > overall performance effect will be positive with epoll + timerfd, > compared to ppoll(). You can also use POLLIN with the epoll file descriptor, i.e. do ppoll followed (if there's no timeout) by epoll_wait with zero timeout. Paolo -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUdIqEAAoJEL/70l94x66DdtsH/RIXbk6faPWdb3MXaHmAoH1E z7q8cGuLPkI7XT54BYbiBFFn4MqS0XxLHLJ69CksFEC5u4wNl9vqsLLJrN/+uZe5 PznE7madjam32ZVtUbzfRwrBtO0KFgyXEiZfR9stAVXW+/KIUAaWU5rQ2IW6GqHg skt2GGmKfrCbyvmxVhSt2oMDRZ7O2Tquox6eLYizQX6JJ3/5vDqpzXTKE/Ix+wnt R3FA3IZkQuZMQPAFsMKj0AajN178RGiqXaB3UIR2YmPN1DWyjkfN05WmPgMpvZa/ eX70AhUdOjLzncfLU3bX9EAsml0s2Hsj5gKRYT6B5d8YK2b0ba3dCqgZRPV3+bo= =8Awx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
