Re: Readiness vs. completion (was: Re: Linux's implementation of poll()not scalable?)

From: John Gardiner Myers (jgmyers@netscape.com)
Date: Mon Oct 30 2000 - 13:55:38 EST


Dan Kegel wrote:
> IMHO you're describing a situation where a 'completion notification event'
> (as with aio) would be more appropriate than a 'readiness notification event'
> (as with poll).

I've found that I want both types of events, preferably through the same
interface. To provide a "completion notification event" interface on
top of an existing nonblocking interface, one needs an "async poll"
mechanism with edge-triggered events with no event coalescing.

You are correct in recognizing NT completion ports from my description.
While the NT completion port interface is ugly as sin, it gets a number
of performance issues right.

> And, come to think of it, network programmers usually can be categorized
> into the same two groups :-) Each style of programming is an acquired taste.

I would say that the "completion notification" style is a paradigm
beyond the "readiness notification" style. I started with the select()
model of network programming and have since learned the clear
superiority of the "completion notificatin" style.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 31 2000 - 21:00:27 EST