On 22/01/2015 22:12, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> In my application, the set of fds almost never changes, but the set of
> events I want changes all the time. The main thing that changes is
> whether I care about EPOLLOUT. If I'm ready to send something, then I
> want EPOLLOUT. If I'm not ready,
On 22/01/2015 22:12, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
In my application, the set of fds almost never changes, but the set of
events I want changes all the time. The main thing that changes is
whether I care about EPOLLOUT. If I'm ready to send something, then I
want EPOLLOUT. If I'm not ready, then
On Thu, 01/22 13:12, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 21/01/2015 12:14, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> > My take for simplicity will be leaving epoll_ctl as-is, and my take for
> >> > performance will be epoll_pwait1. And I don't really like
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 21/01/2015 12:14, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> > My take for simplicity will be leaving epoll_ctl as-is, and my take for
>> > performance will be epoll_pwait1. And I don't really like putting my time
>> > on
>> > epoll_ctl_batch, thinking it
On Thu, 01/22 13:12, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
On 21/01/2015 12:14, Fam Zheng wrote:
My take for simplicity will be leaving epoll_ctl as-is, and my take for
performance will be epoll_pwait1. And I don't really like
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
On 21/01/2015 12:14, Fam Zheng wrote:
My take for simplicity will be leaving epoll_ctl as-is, and my take for
performance will be epoll_pwait1. And I don't really like putting my time
on
epoll_ctl_batch, thinking
On 21/01/2015 12:14, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > My take for simplicity will be leaving epoll_ctl as-is, and my take for
> > performance will be epoll_pwait1. And I don't really like putting my time on
> > epoll_ctl_batch, thinking it as a ambivalent compromise in between.
>
> > I agree with Michael
On Wed, 01/21 11:37, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 21/01/2015 09:58, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> > See my comment in the earlier mail. If you split this into two
> >> > APIs, and epoll_ctl_batch() is guaranteed to execute 'cmds' in order,
> >> > then the return value of epoll_ctl_batch() could be
On 21/01/2015 09:58, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> > See my comment in the earlier mail. If you split this into two
>> > APIs, and epoll_ctl_batch() is guaranteed to execute 'cmds' in order,
>> > then the return value of epoll_ctl_batch() could be used to tell
>> > user space how many commands
On 21/01/2015 08:52, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> > The problem is that there is no room for flags field in epoll_pwait1,
>> > which is
>> > asked for, in previous discussion thread [1].
> Ahh yes, I certainly should not have forgotten that. But that's easily solved.
> Do as for
On Wed, 01/21 08:52, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hello Fam Zheng,
>
> On 01/21/2015 05:59 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Tue, 01/20 13:50, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> >> Hello Fam Zheng,
> >>
> >> On 01/20/2015 10:57 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >>> This syscall is a sequence of
> >>>
>
On Tue, 01/20 23:56, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 05:57:57PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > This syscall is a sequence of
> >
> > 1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
> > 2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout enhancement.
> >
> > The epoll_ctl operations are embeded so that application doesn't
On 21/01/2015 08:52, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
The problem is that there is no room for flags field in epoll_pwait1,
which is
asked for, in previous discussion thread [1].
Ahh yes, I certainly should not have forgotten that. But that's easily solved.
Do as for pselect6():
On 21/01/2015 09:58, Fam Zheng wrote:
See my comment in the earlier mail. If you split this into two
APIs, and epoll_ctl_batch() is guaranteed to execute 'cmds' in order,
then the return value of epoll_ctl_batch() could be used to tell
user space how many commands succeeded. Much
On Wed, 01/21 11:37, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 21/01/2015 09:58, Fam Zheng wrote:
See my comment in the earlier mail. If you split this into two
APIs, and epoll_ctl_batch() is guaranteed to execute 'cmds' in order,
then the return value of epoll_ctl_batch() could be used to tell
On 21/01/2015 12:14, Fam Zheng wrote:
My take for simplicity will be leaving epoll_ctl as-is, and my take for
performance will be epoll_pwait1. And I don't really like putting my time on
epoll_ctl_batch, thinking it as a ambivalent compromise in between.
I agree with Michael actually.
On Wed, 01/21 08:52, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Fam Zheng,
On 01/21/2015 05:59 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
On Tue, 01/20 13:50, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Fam Zheng,
On 01/20/2015 10:57 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
This syscall is a sequence of
1) a number of
On Tue, 01/20 23:56, Omar Sandoval wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 05:57:57PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
This syscall is a sequence of
1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout enhancement.
The epoll_ctl operations are embeded so that application doesn't have to use
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 05:57:57PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> This syscall is a sequence of
>
> 1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
> 2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout enhancement.
>
> The epoll_ctl operations are embeded so that application doesn't have to use
> separate syscalls to insert/delete/update
Hello Fam Zheng,
On 01/21/2015 05:59 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, 01/20 13:50, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hello Fam Zheng,
>>
>> On 01/20/2015 10:57 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
>>> This syscall is a sequence of
>>>
>>> 1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
>>> 2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout
On Tue, 01/20 13:50, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hello Fam Zheng,
>
> On 01/20/2015 10:57 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > This syscall is a sequence of
> >
> > 1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
> > 2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout enhancement.
> >
> > The epoll_ctl operations are embeded so that
Hello Fam Zheng,
On 01/20/2015 10:57 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> This syscall is a sequence of
>
> 1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
> 2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout enhancement.
>
> The epoll_ctl operations are embeded so that application doesn't have to use
> separate syscalls to insert/delete/update
This syscall is a sequence of
1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout enhancement.
The epoll_ctl operations are embeded so that application doesn't have to use
separate syscalls to insert/delete/update the fds before poll. It is more
efficient if the set of fds varies from
Hello Fam Zheng,
On 01/20/2015 10:57 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
This syscall is a sequence of
1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout enhancement.
The epoll_ctl operations are embeded so that application doesn't have to use
separate syscalls to insert/delete/update the
This syscall is a sequence of
1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout enhancement.
The epoll_ctl operations are embeded so that application doesn't have to use
separate syscalls to insert/delete/update the fds before poll. It is more
efficient if the set of fds varies from
On Tue, 01/20 13:50, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Fam Zheng,
On 01/20/2015 10:57 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
This syscall is a sequence of
1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout enhancement.
The epoll_ctl operations are embeded so that application
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 05:57:57PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
This syscall is a sequence of
1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout enhancement.
The epoll_ctl operations are embeded so that application doesn't have to use
separate syscalls to insert/delete/update the
Hello Fam Zheng,
On 01/21/2015 05:59 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
On Tue, 01/20 13:50, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
Hello Fam Zheng,
On 01/20/2015 10:57 AM, Fam Zheng wrote:
This syscall is a sequence of
1) a number of epoll_ctl calls
2) a epoll_pwait, with timeout enhancement.
The
28 matches
Mail list logo
