From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Nov 18 9:22:46 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4802B37B479 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:22:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id eAIHMdL20692; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:22:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:22:39 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Maxime Henrion Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kqueue()/kevent(), select() and poll() Message-ID: <20001118092238.B18037@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20001118150445.A260@nebula.cybercable.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20001118150445.A260@nebula.cybercable.fr>; from mux@qualys.com on Sat, Nov 18, 2000 at 03:04:45PM +0100 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Maxime Henrion [001118 06:03] wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if it was reasonnable to implement the select() and poll() > system calls as kqueue()/kevent() wrappers. This would make any application > using these system calls benefit from the performance improvements of the new > kernel thread. > > Do you think it's possible and that it won't cause some portability problems ? It would just cause more overhead. To implement select()/poll() using kevent would necessitate building up an eventlist that was comprised of EVFILT_ONESHOT events, then after return or timeout clearing the events that hadn't fired. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message