Re: epoll reporting events when it hasn't been asked to

[Dirk Morris]

Davide Libenzi wrote:

> On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Ben Mansell wrote:
>  
>
> > > 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.
> >    

I'd like to weigh in on this issue as I'm having the same issue as Ben.
My application doesnt consider these to be exceptional events, but 
normal expected events, and thus
I need them to be handled like normal events. (I can explain more off 
list if you'd like)
So I just want to ignore all events for some time and then deal with any 
HUP's or ERR's at the appropriate time.
When I used poll(), I always accomplished this by leaving this fd out of 
the poll fd set.
This wasnt a huge hit because I basically had to rebuild the poll fd set 
at every iteration anyway as it changes rapidly.

Now I'm switching to epoll, and the great thing about the epoll 
interface is I don't have to rebuild the entire fd set at every iteration.
Like Ben, I'd prefer to be able to disable ALL events on a fd descriptor 
for some time, instead of removing it entirely.
Since with poll I had to rebuild the set anyway, this 'disable' feature 
wasnt really useful, but would be a nice-to-have for epoll.
:))






-
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/