nu.kanga.list.mud-dev

6799: [MUD-Dev] Re: lurker emerges

T. Alexander Popiel wrote:
> 
> In message:  <35CE7173.7DEEBAEA@freehold.crocodile.org>
>              Vadim Tkachenko <vt@freehold.crocodile.org> writes:
> 
> [ Re: double-buffering and non-blocking I/O ]
> 
> >I could be wrong, but I wish it rest in piece - it was a performance
> >tuning nightmare. Either your I/O theread hogs all the resources looping
> >idle, waiting for the input, or it lags because of the wrong priority
> >set or bad timing.
> >
> >For me, the blocking I/O and a possibility to interrupt it (exceptions)
> >is a blessing.
> >
> >Comments, anyone?
> 
> Well, my comment would be that you've apparently only seen very
> bad implementations of a perfectly reasonable technique.  When
> the I/O thread has no more work to do, it should go to sleep,
> to be awakened by the next I/O completion.  With proper signal
> support, no busywait is needed, and bad timing is irrelevant
> if you're acually getting the device notifications.

I guess we differ in the definitions, or rather I'm ignorant about ones.

Can you please give me a brief definition of a blocking and non-blocking
I/O?

The reason I ask is that I meant exactly what you said.

--
Still alive and smile stays on,
Vadim Tkachenko <vt@freehold.crocodile.org>
--
UNIX _is_ user friendly, he's just very picky about who his friends are