Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 59965 invoked by uid 500); 3 Jul 2002 15:12:46 -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 Received: (qmail 59949 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2002 15:12:45 -0000 Reply-To: From: "Ryan Bloom" To: "'Jeff Trawick'" , Subject: RE: [PATCH] speed up network timeout processing Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 08:13:34 -0700 Organization: Covalent Technologies Message-ID: <00bc01c222a4$333ef4a0$5000000a@KOJ> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N > From: trawick@rdu88-250-182.nc.rr.com [mailto:trawick@rdu88-250- > > A little bird told me that FD_ZERO() burns lots of cycles in > apr_wait_for_io_or_timeout(). It turns out that this is an easy > conversion to poll(), which doesn't have such overhead in the > interface. > > This works for me with some testing (timeouts on read and write work > for me). Can we remove the #ifdef's by just using apr_poll here? Ryan