lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [May]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Mark Russinovich's reponse Was: [OT] Comments to WinNT Mag !! (fwd)
Date
On Tue, 4 May 1999 00:22:28 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:

> In Linux (or any Unix) select()/poll() on anonymous pipes or local
>sockets does the same thing easier, except that pipes/sockets can also
>pass some meaningful information about "events" from the point of view of
>another process/thread. The high efficiency of pipes (and scheduler's
>handling of processes/threads that use them, that causes context switch at
>the right time) is probably the reason why such interface never appeared.
>

Yes, I did this as a test and was impressed that the performance was comparable
to what I get in NT. I expected the Unix domain sockets I was using to cost
a lot more time than they did. Even so the code complexity was unwelcome.
Look at any GUI. They all multiplex the keyboard, mouse and window events
so you read just one input source. To duplicate what I do with WaitForMultipleObjects
in NT I would need 13 threads in just one of my processes. All of those threads
would probably just grab a process wide lock as soon as they come unblocked
to save me from analyzing all of the potential concurrency.

Mark

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:51    [W:0.308 / U:0.436 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site