Re: Blocking read() policy?
From: David Schwartz (davids_at_webmaster.com)
Date: 07/20/05
- Next message: David Schwartz: "Re: Blocking read() policy?"
- Previous message: David Schwartz: "Re: TCP socket not stable"
- In reply to: Robert Redelmeier: "Re: Blocking read() policy?"
- Next in thread: Kasper Dupont: "Re: Blocking read() policy?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 12:33:31 -0700
"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@ev1.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:u9wDe.655$LF.600@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
> David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> wrote:
>> I don't understand what you're asking. What do you mean by
>> "bypass blocks"?
> An app can open a fd with O_NONBLOCK. I'm suggesting
> the kernel treat that both POSIXly _and_ as a suggestion
> to the scheduler that too many null returns should cause
> rescheduling in spite of O_NONBLOCK.
Eww, no, that's horrible. Unexpected blocking is something we work very,
very hard to avoid.
DS
- Next message: David Schwartz: "Re: Blocking read() policy?"
- Previous message: David Schwartz: "Re: TCP socket not stable"
- In reply to: Robert Redelmeier: "Re: Blocking read() policy?"
- Next in thread: Kasper Dupont: "Re: Blocking read() policy?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|