RE: [Patch][RFC] epoll and half closed TCP connections

[Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, David Schwartz wrote:

>
> > Let's look at what the poll code does :
> >
> > 1) It has to allocate the kernel buffer for events
> >
> > 2) It has to copy it from userspace
> >
> > 3) It has to allocate wait queue buffer calling get_free_page (possibly
> > 	multiple times when we talk about decent fds numbers)
> >
> > 4) It has to loop calling N times f_op->poll() that in turn will add into
> > 	the wait queue getting/releasing IRQ locks
> >
> > 5) Loop another M loop to copy events to userspace
> >
> > 6) Call kfree() for all blocks allocated
> >
> > 7) Call poll_freewait() that will go with another N loop to unregister
> > 	poll waits, that in turn will do another N IRQ locks
>
> 	This is really just due to bad coding in 'poll', or more precisely very bad
> for this case. For example, why is it allocating a wait queue buffer if the
> odds that it will need to wait are basically zero? Why is it adding file
> descriptors to the wait queue before it has determined that it needs to
> wait?
>
> 	As load increases, more and more calls to 'poll' require no waiting. Yet
> 'poll' is heavily optimized for the 'no or low load' case. That's why 'poll'
> doesn't scale on Linux.

However you implement poll(2) you have "at least" to do one iteration
among the interest set, and hence your implementation will be O(N).



- Davide