On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Martin Sustrik <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Wouldn't happen like that, rather allocate fixed shmem buffers that >> are reused for smaller messages. And use signals to indicate new >> data... no? > > Definitely doable. But that's what OS-provided IPC mechanism does under > covers. Once you go that way you find yourself competing with kernel > implementation of the same thing. Are signals as fast as, or slower than inproc? > Not that it's not doable. There've been a discussion on the list where > someone proposed busy-looping when waiting for incoming data, thus > by-passing the kernel. Still, my feeling is that such measures are a bit > drastic even for a HPC solution like 0MQ. Busy-looping makes sense (except for energy consumption) when there's one core per task, and that's kind of where things are heading... Might be worth collecting this into a design whitepaper. -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
