Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:57:38 -0800 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Change select(2) to kevent(2) on script(1)... Message-ID: <494FFF42.7090102@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20081223002901.9b71e60d.nork@FreeBSD.org> References: <20081221012752.cdc5cbfc.nork@FreeBSD.org> <20081221211949.GS1176@hoeg.nl> <20081222091203.GA28920@freebsd.org> <494F740E.3040502@FreeBSD.org> <20081223002901.9b71e60d.nork@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Norikatsu Shigemura wrote: > Hi sobomax! > > On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 03:03:42 -0800 > Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@freebsd.org> wrote: >> Roman Divacky wrote: >>> I believe other OSes should be able to do the porting effort when they >>> want to use FreeBSD software. >>> if kqueue-in-script makes any improvement go for it. >> I really doubt there would be any. It's just 2 descriptors, and if >> select(2) can't handle 2 descriptors efficiently them perhaps it is >> broken and has to be fixed instead. > > I think that performance improvement is significant(I don't > think performance improved by my patch). But my patch is the And can you explain where that "significant improvement" comes from? Are you saying that tty layer / pseudo-terminal driver is somehow much more efficient with kqeue(2) compared to select(2)/poll(2)? There is something broken about it if so. In any case without any numbers this discussion is pretty much pointless. -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?494FFF42.7090102>