STINNER Victor added the comment: 2014-01-25 Charles-François Natali <rep...@bugs.python.org>: >> It looks like changing the rounding method doesn't solve anything. >> selector.select(timeout) may still take less than timeout, so it >> doesn't give any guarantee. > > But what problem does it cause if, once in a while, the call takes less > than the passed timeout? > If that's the case, you'll simply perform another loop, an wake up 1ms > later, that's all.
"perform another loop" is my problem. If possible, I would like useless calls to the loop. With my latest patch to asyncio, there is no more useless calls to the loop (at least, not because of a time rounding issue). Oh, I forgot to mention that I'm also concerned by the backward compatibility. Changing how poll and epoll round the timeout changes the behaviour. It may break applications or maybe change performances of applications (efficiency or reactivity). Changing the rounding method in Python 3.3 was not a good idea. @Charles-François: I'm not sure that we are talking about the same thing. If you still want to change poll and epoll, go ahead. Since the performance issue has been fixed directly in asyncio, I don't feel the need of changing the poll or epoll anymore in Python 3.4. Or maybe you disagree with my change in the asyncio module? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue20311> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
