Re: epoll (was Re: [PATCH] async poll for 2.5)

[Mark Mielke]

On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 09:10:52AM -0700, Charles 'Buck' Krasic wrote:
> Mark Mielke <[e-mail]> writes:
> > They still represent an excessive complicated model that attempts to
> > implement /dev/epoll the same way that one would implement poll()/select().
> epoll is about fixing one aspect of an otherwise well established api.
> That is, fixing the scalability of poll()/select() for applications
> based on non-blocking sockets.

epoll is not a poll()/select() enhancement (unless it is used in
conjuction with poll()/select()). It is a poll()/select()
replacement.

Meaning... purposefully creating an API that is designed the way one
would design a poll()/select() loop is purposefully limiting the benefits
of /dev/epoll.

It's like inventing a power drill to replace the common screw driver,
but rather than plugging the power drill in, manually turning the
drill as if it was a socket wrench for the drill bit.

I find it an excercise in self defeat... except that /dev/epoll used the
same way one would use poll()/select() happens to perform better even
when it is crippled.

mark

-- 
[e-mail]/[e-mail]/[e-mail] __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/