Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2002, Charles 'Buck' Krasic wrote:
>
>> So maybe epoll's moment of utility is only transient. It should have
>> been in the kernel a long time ago. Is it too late now that AIO is
>> imminent?
>
> This is not my call actually. But beside comparing actual performance
> between AIO and sys_epoll, one of the advantages that the patch had is
> ... it has a very little "intrusion" in the original code by plugging
> in the existing architecture.
epoll has another benefit: it works with read() and write(). That
makes it easier to use with existing libraries like OpenSSL
without having to recode them to use aio_read() and aio_write().
Furthermore, epoll is nice because it delivers one-shot readiness change
notification (I used to think that was a drawback, but coding
nonblocking OpenSSL apps has convinced me otherwise).
I may be confused, but I suspect the async poll being proposed by
Ben only delivers absolute readiness, not changes in readiness.
I think epoll is worth having, even if Ben's AIO already handled
networking properly.
- 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 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:01:05 EST