Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:10:58 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:10:48 -0500 Received: from PACIFIC-CARRIER-ANNEX.MIT.EDU ([18.7.21.83]:42971 "EHLO pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 4 Feb 2002 00:10:36 -0500 Message-Id: <200202040510.AAA21897@multics.mit.edu> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Dan Kegel cc: Kev , Arjen Wolfs , coder-com@undernet.org, feedback@distributopia.com, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [Coder-Com] Re: PROBLEM: high system usage / poor SMPnetwork performance In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 03 Feb 2002 19:25:03 PST." <3C5DFF0F.3B5EFFC0@kegel.com> Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 00:10:29 -0500 From: Kev Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > If I'm reading Poller_sigio::waitForEvents correctly, the rtsig stuff at > > least tries to return a list of which sockets have become ready, and your > > implementation falls back to some other interface when the signal queue > > overflows. It also seems to extract what state the socket's in at that > > point. > > > > If that's true, I confess I can't quite see your point even still. Once > > the event is generated, ircd should read or write as much as it can, then > > not pay any attention to the socket until readiness is again signaled by > > the generation of an event. Sorry if I'm being dense here... > > If you actually do read or write *until an EWOULDBLOCK*, no problem. > If your code has a path where it fails to do so, it will get stuck, > as no further readiness events will be forthcoming. That's all. Ah ha! And you may indeed have a point there... -- Kevin L. Mitchell - 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/