Re: and nicer too - Re: [PATCH] epoll more scalable than poll

[Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>]

On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> > 1) "issuing a command to an IDE disk" == "using read/write until EAGAIN"
> > 2) "adding yourself on the IDE disk wait queue" == "calling sys_epoll_wait()"
>
> That is quite a good analogy.  epoll is like a waitqueue - which is
> also like a futex.  To use a waitqueue properly you have do these
> things in the order shown:
>
> 	1. Set the task state to stopped.
> 	2. Register yourself on the waitqueue.
> 	3. Check the condition.
> 	4. If condition is not met, schedule.
>
> With epoll it is very similar.  To wait for a condition on a file
> descriptor, such as readability, you must do these things in the order
> shown:
>
> 	1. Register your interest using epoll_ctl.
> 	2. Check the condition by actually calling read().
> 	3. If the condition is not met (i.e. read() returned EAGAIN),
> 	   call epoll_wait (i.e. equivalent to schedule).
>
> With epoll, you can optimise by registering interest just once.  In
> other words, steps 2 and 3 may be repeated without repeating step 1.
>
> And if you are concerned about starvation -- that is, one of your file
> descriptors always has new data so others don't get a chance to be
> serviced -- don't be.  You don't have to completely read one fd until
> you see EGAIN.  All that matters is that until you see the EAGAIN,
> your user space data structure should have a flag that says the fd is
> still readable, so another epoll event is not expected or required for
> that fd.

Jamie,

can I pay you a beer ? Your comment describe perfectly the API. You can
replace read() with write() in your description, and the whole thing is
still true.



- Davide