Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 12:47:35 +0300 (MSK) From: Igor Sysoev <is@rambler-co.ru> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: getsysfd() patch #1 (Re: Virtual memory question) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0301141233180.26727-100000@is> In-Reply-To: <200301140851.h0E8p78U078882@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Another thing I would like to do is descriptor-based timers. So instead > of being limited to just the stupid itimers, or interfering with other > threads/libraries use of [i]timers, you can simply allocate your own by > getting a timer descriptor and then doing cool things with it, like > having it generate a custom signal or selecting on it or kqueue'ing on > it etc... it's something UNIX has needed for a long time actually. kqueue already has EVFILT_TIMER in __FreeBSD_version >= 440001 and __FreeBSD_version >= 500023. Descriptor-based timers would be non-standard feature and if you use non-standard features then you should use kqueue instead of poll or select. Nevetheless it seems to me that using many kernel timers is not good thing if you need frequently to set or delete them (i.e. in web-servers). It's much better to use user-level timer queue and call kqueue/poll/select with timeout value from the head of this queue. Igor Sysoev http://sysoev.ru/en/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0301141233180.26727-100000>