Messages in this thread | | | From | "Stephen C. Tweedie" <> | Date | Tue, 22 Feb 2000 12:18:55 +0000 (GMT) | Subject | Re: accept() improvements for rt signals |
| |
Hi,
On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 09:45:52 -0800, Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu> said:
> If the overall mantra of the F_SETSIG etc. api is "You never need > to call poll() except when the RT sig queue overflows", though, > we need to have events generated during the entire lifetime > of each socket fd. Currently, there's a gap between the > accept() and when rt signal generation is turned on for the fd, > so you need to do a poll() to see if data arrived on the socket > between accept() and F_SETSIG etc.
That's not quite correct. The mantra of F_SETSIG is that you never ever have to do anything unscalable like polling on every fd you have open when only a few have activity. The poll() you describe above is a single non-blocking poll on one single fd, which doesn't have the scalability problems inherent in making your whole event loop revolve around poll().
> It would add some pleasing symmetry if the enhanced accept() also > generated a queued notifier.
Agreed.
--Stephen
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |