Re: and nicer too - Re: [PATCH] epoll more scalable than poll

[Jamie Lokier]

Dan Kegel wrote:
> Davide Libenzi wrote:
> >>Do you avoid the cost of epoll_ctl() per new fd?
> >
> >Jamie, the cost of epoll_ctl(2) is minimal/zero compared with the average
> >life of a connection.
> 
> Depends on the workload.  Where I work, the http client I'm writing
> has to perform extremely well even on 1 byte files with HTTP 1.0.
> Minimizing system calls is suprisingly important - even
> a gettimeofday hurts.

For this sort of thing, I would like to see an option to automatically
set the non-blocking flag on accept().  To really squeeze the system
calls, you could also automatically epoll-register on accept(), and
for super bonus automatically do the accept() at event delivery time.

But it's getting very silly at that point.

-- Jamie