Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Apr 2004 10:59:27 -0700 | From | Dirk Morris <> | Subject | Re: epoll reporting events when it hasn't been asked to |
| |
Davide Libenzi wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Ben Mansell wrote: > > >>>If an exception occurs (example a socket is disconnected) the socket >>>should be removed from the fd list. There is really no point in passing >>>in an excepted fd. >>> >>> >>Is there any difference, speed-wise, between turning off all events to >>listen to with EPOLL_MOD, and removing the file descriptor with >>EPOLL_DEL? I had vaguely assumed that the former would be faster >>(especially if you might later want to resume listening for events), >>although that was just a guess. >> >>
I'd like to weigh in on this issue as I'm having the same issue as Ben. My application doesnt consider these to be exceptional events, but normal expected events, and thus I need them to be handled like normal events. (I can explain more off list if you'd like) So I just want to ignore all events for some time and then deal with any HUP's or ERR's at the appropriate time. When I used poll(), I always accomplished this by leaving this fd out of the poll fd set. This wasnt a huge hit because I basically had to rebuild the poll fd set at every iteration anyway as it changes rapidly.
Now I'm switching to epoll, and the great thing about the epoll interface is I don't have to rebuild the entire fd set at every iteration. Like Ben, I'd prefer to be able to disable ALL events on a fd descriptor for some time, instead of removing it entirely. Since with poll I had to rebuild the set anyway, this 'disable' feature wasnt really useful, but would be a nice-to-have for epoll. :))
- 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/
| |