On Mon, 01/12 02:08, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 04:24:00PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Thu, 01/08 21:21, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:49:08PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 01/08 18:24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 04:24:00PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 01/08 21:21, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:49:08PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Thu, 01/08 18:24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 01/08 1
On Thu, 01/08 21:21, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:49:08PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Thu, 01/08 18:24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 01/08 17:28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:25 PM,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2015 at 12:49:08PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 01/08 18:24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Thu, 01/08 17:28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > >> > On Thu, 01/08 09:57, And
On Thu, 01/08 18:24, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Thu, 01/08 17:28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 01/08 09:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> >> I'd like to see a more ambitious change,
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 01/08 17:28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> > On Thu, 01/08 09:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> >> I'd like to see a more ambitious change, since the timer isn't the
>> >> only problem like this
On Thu, 01/08 17:28, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Thu, 01/08 09:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> I'd like to see a more ambitious change, since the timer isn't the
> >> only problem like this. Specifically, I'd like a syscall that does a
> >> lis
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Thu, 01/08 09:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 16:25 +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> >> Applications could use epoll interface when then need to poll a big
>> >> number
On Thu, 01/08 09:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 16:25 +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> Applications could use epoll interface when then need to poll a big number
> >> of
> >> files in their main loops, to achieve better per
On Jan 8, 2015 10:42 AM, wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 09:57:24AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 16:25 +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > >> Applications could use epoll interface when then need to poll a big
> >
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 10:42 AM, wrote:
>> I'd like to see a more ambitious change, since the timer isn't the
>> only problem like this. Specifically, I'd like a syscall that does a
>> list of epoll-related things and then waits. The list of things could
>> include, at least:
>>
>> - EPOLL_CTL
On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 09:57:24AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 16:25 +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> >> Applications could use epoll interface when then need to poll a big number
> >> of
> >> files in their main loops,
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 1:12 AM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 16:25 +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> Applications could use epoll interface when then need to poll a big number of
>> files in their main loops, to achieve better performance than ppoll(2).
>> Except
>> for one concern: epo
On 8 January 2015 at 10:12, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 16:25 +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
>> Applications could use epoll interface when then need to poll a big number of
>> files in their main loops, to achieve better performance than ppoll(2).
>> Except
>> for one concern: epoll o
[Resend because my script screwed the recipient format, sorry for the noise.]
Applications could use epoll interface when then need to poll a big number of
files in their main loops, to achieve better performance than ppoll(2). Except
for one concern: epoll only takes timeout parameters in microse
On Thu, 2015-01-08 at 16:25 +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> Applications could use epoll interface when then need to poll a big number of
> files in their main loops, to achieve better performance than ppoll(2). Except
> for one concern: epoll only takes timeout parameters in microseconds, rather
> than
16 matches
Mail list logo