From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:19:47 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:19:47 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com ([216.148.227.88]:21655 "EHLO rwcrmhc52.attbi.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:19:47 -0500 Message-ID: <3DC2BCF5.5010607@kegel.com> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 09:42:13 -0800 From: Dan Kegel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020830 X-Accept-Language: de-de, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Davide Libenzi CC: Jamie Lokier , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-aio@kvack.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: and nicer too - Re: [PATCH] epoll more scalable than poll References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Davide Libenzi wrote: >>Do you avoid the cost of epoll_ctl() per new fd? > > Jamie, the cost of epoll_ctl(2) is minimal/zero compared with the average > life of a connection. Depends on the workload. Where I work, the http client I'm writing has to perform extremely well even on 1 byte files with HTTP 1.0. Minimizing system calls is suprisingly important - even a gettimeofday hurts. - Dan