Re: [PATCH RFC 5/6] epoll: Add implementation for epoll_mod_wait

[Fam Zheng <famz-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, 01/22 13:12, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> 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.
> 

OK, I'll split it to epoll_ctl_batch and epoll_pwait1 as Micheal suggested in
v2.

Fam