Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 21:56:00 -0500 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: pradeep reddy punnam <prady_p@yahoo.com> Cc: Joseph M Link <freebsd@joelink.net> Subject: Re: regarding timeout/untimeout kernel functions Message-ID: <20040723025600.GA3234@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20040723022324.55446.qmail@web53409.mail.yahoo.com> References: <410069F0.5040604@joelink.net> <20040723022324.55446.qmail@web53409.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Jul 22), pradeep reddy punnam said: > i thought of threading with select before , but i belive that if > the number of timers to be checked increases the number of the > threads to be maintained increses,so the process may become very > hevy. what do u think. Threads are very lightweight. You should be able to create hundreds of (mostly-sleeping) threads with no problem. You wouldn't even need to use select; just sleep (or nanosleep). > i think ultimatley i am going to use the above thing. but in the > process of my search i came across the timeout kernel function > implemenation but i can not use that ( which i belive very efficient > implementation of timers ), which user can not able to use it , so i > just want to discuss it . You could also use the kqueue/kevent functions to queue up an arbitrary number of timer events in a single process. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040723025600.GA3234>