Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 12:16:39PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > Ben, one of the reasons of the /dev/epoll speed is how it returns events
> > > and how it collapses them. A memory mapped array is divided by two and
> > > while the user consumes events in one set, the kernel fill the other one.
> > > The next wait() will switch the pointers. There is no copy from kernel to
> > > user space. Doing :
> > >
> > > int sys_epoll_wait(int epd, struct pollfd **pevts, int timeout);
> > >
> > > the only data the kernel has to copy to userspace is the 4(8) bytes for
> > > the "pevts" pointer.
> >
> > Erm, the aio interface has support for the event ringbuffer being accessed
> > by userspace (it lives in user memory and the kernel acts as a writer, with
> > userspace as a reader), that's one of its advantages -- completion events
> > are directly accessible from userspace after being written to by an
> > interrupt. Ideally this is to be wrapped in a vsyscall, but we don't have
> > support for that yet on x86, although much of the code written for x86-64
> > should be reusable.
>
> In general I would like to have a "common" interface to retrieve IO
> events, but IMHO the two solutions should be benchmarked before adopting
> the one or the other.
Seems like /dev/epoll uses a double-buffering scheme rather than
a ring buffer, and this is not just a trivial difference; it's
related to how redundant events are collapsed, right?
- Dan
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 15 2002 - 22:00:56 EST