[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWwuJpFK+38mBxxTQCu7Oig22Nr+mAuO++Y+0CdAhfzkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 13:12:59 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Fam Zheng <famz@...hat.com>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@...e.cz>,
David Drysdale <drysdale@...gle.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Rashika Kheria <rashika.kheria@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 5/6] epoll: Add implementation for epoll_mod_wait
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 21/01/2015 12:14, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> > My take for simplicity will be leaving epoll_ctl as-is, and my take for
>> > performance will be epoll_pwait1. And I don't really like putting my time on
>> > epoll_ctl_batch, thinking it as a ambivalent compromise in between.
>>
>> > I agree with Michael actually. The big change is going from O(n)
>> > epoll_ctl calls to O(1), and epoll_ctl_batch achieves that just fine.
>> > Changing 2 syscalls to 1 is the icing on the cake, but we're talking of
>> > a fraction of a microsecond.
>>
>> Maybe I'm missing something, but in common cases, the set of fds for epoll_wait
>> doesn't change that radically from one iteration to another, does it?
>
> That depends on the application.
In my application, the set of fds almost never changes, but the set of
events I want changes all the time. The main thing that changes is
whether I care about EPOLLOUT. If I'm ready to send something, then I
want EPOLLOUT. If I'm not ready, then I don't want EPOLLOUT.
--Andy
--
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