From dev-return-6998-apmail-apr-dev-archive=apr.apache.org@apr.apache.org Fri Jul 05 21:22:21 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 9225 invoked by uid 500); 5 Jul 2002 21:22:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Delivered-To: moderator for dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 32190 invoked from network); 5 Jul 2002 15:41:19 -0000 Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2002 11:39:28 -0400 (EDT) From: rbb@apache.org X-Sender: rbb@shell.ntrnet.net To: Ian Holsman Cc: rbb@apache.org, dev@apr.apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] speed up network timeout processing In-Reply-To: <3D25AD6D.7030400@apache.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Fri, 5 Jul 2002, Ian Holsman wrote: > rbb@apache.org wrote: > > Here is the patch to use apr_poll instead of select. This is just being > > posted for completeness, not because I believe it will actually perform as > > well as the standard poll() implementation. Bill offered to benchmark it, > > so I am posting it. I will re-implement apr_poll() tomorrow to offer much > > better performance, and I will post a new patch based on that sometime > > tomorrow. > > > > Once we have actual numbers for all three implementations of > > wait_for_io_or_timeout, we can have an intelligent conversation about the > > best one to use, based on code complexity and performance. > > is there any way to remove the need for the pool create and pcallocs > that the socket-add does? I believe that there is, and it will be a part of my new poll implementation. Ryan _______________________________________________________________________________ Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org 550 Jean St Oakland CA 94610 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------