Message173582
| Author |
neologix |
| Recipients |
Erez.Sh, William.Edwards, asksol, danken, dmalcolm, giampaolo.rodola, jnoller, neologix, pitrou, sbt, synapse, vstinner |
| Date |
2012年10月23日.07:38:30 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CAH_1eM2qykdNH65_vuBg8NQTBUVrj78R-Q+njmQg_+tGkLWrsA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1350939736.46.0.967163442656.issue10527@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
>> This problem affects any single use of select(): instead of using an
>> ad-hoc wrapper in each module, it would probably make sense to add a
>> higher level selector class to the select module which would fallback on
>> the right syscall (i.e. poll() if available, or /dev/poll on Solaris-
>> like).
>
> Doesn't Solaris have poll()? If so then I don't see why one would want to use /dev/poll in the single fd case.
Because it offers better performance than poll(): you don't have to
keep passing the FD at each syscall (note that I'm not talking about
the signal FD case, but about a generic polling API).
Also note that microbenchmarks with one FD isn't really meaningful,
since in real life the FD won't be ready at least part of the time:
like Antoine, I think that worrying about performance impact is really
a premature optimization (unless real benchmarks prove otherwise). |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2012年10月23日 07:38:30 | neologix | set | recipients:
+ neologix, pitrou, vstinner, giampaolo.rodola, jnoller, synapse, asksol, dmalcolm, danken, Erez.Sh, sbt, William.Edwards |
| 2012年10月23日 07:38:30 | neologix | link | issue10527 messages |
| 2012年10月23日 07:38:30 | neologix | create |
|