* Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > I was wrong about the size of epitem : it is now 68 bytes instead of
> > 72. At least we now use/dirty one cache line instead of two per
> > epitem.
> >
> > Do you have another brilliant idea to shrink 4 more bytes ? :)
>
> I don't think we can cleanly shove more
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 February 2007 19:37, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> > + list_del(&epi->rdllink);
> > + if (!(epi->event.events & EPOLLET) && (revents &
> > epi->event.events))
> > + list_add_tail(&epi->rdllink, &injlist)
On Wednesday 28 February 2007 19:37, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> + list_del(&epi->rdllink);
> + if (!(epi->event.events & EPOLLET) && (revents &
> epi->event.events))
> + list_add_tail(&epi->rdllink, &injlist);
> + else {
Is the ( ... & epi->ev
ChangeLog:
v3) Removed the "revents" field from the epoll item structure, as
suggested by Eric Dumazet
v2) In v1, I was trying to avoid to get the spinlock twice WRT yesterday
patch, but it turns out I can't since the ready list will be travelling
through a path w/out the ep->sem
4 matches
Mail list logo
