Re: epoll reporting events when it hasn't been asked to
From: Ben Mansell
Date: Fri Apr 02 2004 - 04:06:58 EST
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Steven Dake wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 12:28, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Ben Mansell wrote:
> > > > It is a feature. epoll OR user events with POLLHUP|POLLERR so that even if
> > > > the user sets the event mask to zero, it can still know when something
> > > > like those abnormal condition happened. Which problem do you see with this?
> > >
> > > What should the application do if it gets events that it didn't ask for?
> > > If you choose to ignore them, the next time epoll_wait() is called it
> > > will return instantly with these same messages, so the app will spin and
> > > eat CPU.
> > Shouldn't the application handle those exceptional conditions instead of
> > ignoring them?
> If an exception occurs (example a socket is disconnected) the socket
> should be removed from the fd list. There is really no point in passing
> in an excepted fd.
Is there any difference, speed-wise, between turning off all events to
listen to with EPOLL_MOD, and removing the file descriptor with
EPOLL_DEL? I had vaguely assumed that the former would be faster
(especially if you might later want to resume listening for events),
although that was just a guess.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/