| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-id: <4549A9EF.9000303@cosmosbay.com> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:18:55 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> To: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru> Cc: zhou drangon <drangon.mail@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [take22 0/4] kevent: Generic event handling mechanism. Evgeniy Polyakov a écrit : > pipes will work with kevent's poll mechanisms only, so there will not be > any performance gain at all since it is essentially the same as epoll > design with waiting and rescheduling (all my measurements with > epoll vs. kevent_poll always showed the same rates), pipes require the same > notifications as sockets for maximum perfomance. > I've put it into todo list. Evgeniy I think this part is *important*. I think most readers of lkml are not aware of exact mechanisms used in epoll, kevent poll, and 'kevent' I dont understand why epoll is bad for you, since for me, ep_poll_callback() is fast enough, even if we can make it touch less cache lines if reoredering 'struct epitem' correctly. My epoll_pipe_bench doesnt change the rescheduling rate of the test machine. Could you in your home page add some doc that clearly show the path taken for those 3 mechanisms and different events sources (At least sockets) Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists