Boost logo

Boost :

From: christopher baus (christopher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-12-29 17:43:27

> When I first added epoll support it was to meet the requirements
> of handling tens of thousands of connections. I used the
> level-triggered interface because it mapped easily from the
> existing select_reactor implementation.
> However, I have already been thinking about converting to use
> edge-triggered epoll to reduce the number of epoll_ctl calls.
> Some recent changes I have made post-review-version are steps in
> this direction.

Ok good. I'm glad somebody pointed this out because it was one of the
three concerns I was going to mention in my review. If I can't finish my
review in the next day, I feel that they've all been addressed else where.

Looking at Jody numbers on select() vs epoll(), I realized this is
probably the reason why epoll looked bad when there were many "always
ready" FDs. There is no reason to wait on an FD until EWOULDBLOCK is
returned from read() or write(). Just associate the readiness state with
the socket.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at