Let me say one of my use cases that, i think cant be handled by timers. This is WIP.
I have in each thread multiple actors. Each such actor might want to ask for a service (like a database). It sends a message and then work passes to other actors. Since there is a chance that the response from the service is lost, I want to use the lazy pirate pattern per actor. So what I did was add a tickless service with poll that sends msgs to a socket (or directly to the same thread that has the poll ) after a specific delay. I think that having payloads on timers is a useful pattern in general. 2013/2/5 Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > If you have a timer to expire after 1m , you dont check every 20 ms if it > > expired, you use poll() that wakes after 1m if no other event happens. > > Right. The original goal is to reduce CPU wakeups, so tickless code > will work nicely on low power devices. The concept comes from the > Linux kernel: https://lesswatts.org/projects/tickless/ > > As well as reducing CPU wakeups it makes it easier to schedule precise > events, e.g. send PING once per second, even if there was some other > activity in the meantime. You need this when you are doing anything > complex. > > zmq_poll should IMO have tickless timers built in, and it's something > I'd like to add to CZMQ (poll class with tickless timers). > > -Pieter > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > -- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
