Date: Tue, 09 Dec 1997 10:19:37 -0500 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@torrentnet.com> To: Luigi Rizzo <luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why FIONREAD has no dual for write ? Message-ID: <199712091519.KAA09117@chai.torrentnet.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 09 Dec 1997 05:57:11 %2B0100." <199712090457.FAA00305@labinfo.iet.unipi.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Plus there are apps which want only to check the status of the queue in
> > a descriptor without actually doing the I/O, for whatever reason they
> > like.
>
> This can be handled by POLL{IN,OUT}_WM.
> not sure how... if i get it right your changes can tell a process when
> you can transfer x >= WM bytes, but gives no clue about the current status
> of the queue. Much like the difference between
Well, if you want to know _exactly_ how many bytes you can
transfer without doing any IO, you are right that the changes
I propose wouldn't help. But if you just want to know
whether you can transfer atleast N bytes, they are fine.
This is often good enough. Also note that FION{READ,WRITE}
aren't precise either -- by the time you do actual IO more
data may have been received/drained.
[Just stating the obvious...] The idea behind high/low
watermark is to introduce a _hysteresis_ effect. You want an
advance notice about when buffers may get empty/full so that
you can produce/consume sufficient data before they actually
get empty/full. By choosing the watermarks judiciously you
can *minimize* the overhead and still keep data flowing.
This is something sorely missing from poll() and select().
-- bakul
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712091519.KAA09117>