Re: [Patch][RFC] epoll and half closed TCP connections

From: James Antill (james@and.org)
Date: Tue Jul 15 2003 - 15:27:56 EST


"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> writes:

> This is really just due to bad coding in 'poll', or more precisely very bad
> for this case. For example, why is it allocating a wait queue buffer if the
> odds that it will need to wait are basically zero? Why is it adding file
> descriptors to the wait queue before it has determined that it needs to
> wait?

 Because this is much easier to do in userspace, it's just not very
well documented that you should almost always call poll() with a zero
timeout first. However it's been there for years, and things have used
it[1].
 There are still optimizations that could have been done to poll() to
speed it up but Linus has generally refused to add them.

[1] http://www.and.org/socket_poll/

-- 
# James Antill -- james@and.org
:0:
* ^From: .*james@and\.org
/dev/null
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 22:01:00 EST