archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jamie Lokier <>
To: Eric Varsanyi <>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>
Subject: Re: epoll vs stdin/stdout
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 21:03:15 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Eric Varsanyi wrote:
> Epoll's API/impl is great as it is IMO, not suggesting need for change, I was
> hoping there was a good standard trick someone worked up to get around
> this specifc end case of stdin/stdout usually being dups but sometimes
> not. Porting my event system over to use epoll was easy/straightforward
> except for this one minor hitch.

Easy: if it's a read event, it's stdin; if it's a write event, it's stdout :)

You've raised an interesting problem.  It is easy to fix this in the
specific case of stdin/stdout, however what happens when your process
is passed a pair of fds from some other process (or more than one
process, using AF_UNIX), and told to read one and write the other?
What happens when you have 10 fds from different sources, some for
reading and some for writing (quite typical in a complex server)?

With the epoll API, your process has to know whether any paids or fds
correspond to the same file *, in order to decide whether to register
one interested in READ+WRITE or two interests separately.

Unfortunately I cannot think of a way for a process to know, in
general, whether two fds that it is passed correspond to the same file
*.  Well, apart from trying epoll on it and seeing what happens :/

Perhaps this indicates the epoll API _is_ flawed.  Epoll maintains
this state mapping:

	file * -> (event mask, event states)

when it ought to maintain this:

	(file *, event type) -> event state

In other words, perhaps epoll should be keeping registered interest in
read events and registered interest in write events completely

I suspect changing the API to do that wouldn't even break any of the
existing apps.

Davide, what do you think?

-- Jamie

  reply	other threads:[~2003-07-07 19:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-07-07 15:48 epoll vs stdin/stdout Eric Varsanyi
2003-07-07 18:57 ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-07 19:47   ` Eric Varsanyi
2003-07-07 20:03     ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2003-07-07 20:18       ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2003-07-07 21:20         ` H. Peter Anvin
2003-07-07 22:11       ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-08  0:24         ` Jamie Lokier
2003-07-08  0:23           ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-07 22:12     ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-07 23:26       ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-08  0:32         ` Jamie Lokier
2003-07-08  0:32           ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-08  0:52             ` Jamie Lokier
2003-07-08  1:13               ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-08 12:34                 ` Jamie Lokier
2003-07-08 13:51                   ` Jamie Lokier
2003-07-08 15:20                     ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-08 15:46         ` Eric Varsanyi
2003-07-08 15:42           ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-08 16:02             ` Eric Varsanyi
2003-07-08 17:06               ` Davide Libenzi
2003-07-08 18:40                 ` Eric Varsanyi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).