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. Paolo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
