--- Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org> wrote:

quoted text
> Looking back at it, I think the current TCP code is right, once you look 
> at the "event" to be a output buffer full->with_space transition.
> If you drop an fd inside epoll with EPOLLOUT|EPOLLET and you get an event 
> (free space on the output buffer), if you do not consume it (say a 
> tcp_sendmsg that re-fill the buffer), you can't see other OUT event 
> anymore since they happen on the full->with_space transition.
> Yes, I know, the read size (EPOLLIN) works differently and you get an 
> event for every packet you receive. And yes, I do not like asymmetric 
> things. But that does not make the EPOLLOUT|EPOLLET wrong IMO.
> 

I agree that ET means the event should happen at the transition
from nospace->space condition, but isn't the other case (event is 
delivered every time the event actually happens) more usable.
Also the epoll man page says so

"... Edge Triggered event distribution delivers events only when 
events happens on the  monitored file."

This serves the purpose of ET (reducing the number of poll events) and
at the same time makes userspace coding easier. My userspace code
has the liberty of deciding when it can write to the socket. f.e. the
sendfile buffer management example that I quoted in my earlier post
will be difficult with the current ET|POLLOUT behaviour. I cannot 
write in full-buffer units. I'll ve to write partial buffers just to 
fill the TCP writeq which is needed to trigger the event.

Thanx,
Tomar



      ___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ 
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/