On Thu, 01/22 13:12, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 3:50 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
