search for: io_del

On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 08:12:53 +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote: > I was thinking by setting a flag whenever we call io_del(), and checking > that flag in the for-loop in event_loop(). So basically you would store a generation number in the tree that gets incremented by a call to io_del()? Or should the flag/number be changed each time the order of the tree changes? > > Changing the order of the events chang...

On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 23:01:29 +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote: > The problem is not the order of the events, the problem is that in the > Windows version of the event loop, we only handle one event in each loop > iteration. The select() loop handles all events that have accumulated so > far, so regardless of the order it handles them, it never starves fd. At > least, that was what I

...her than the first one returned. I've also added a map of io_t to events[] index so avoid the need for splay_search(). The value of event_count will change if a callback adds an event so we need to handle that. I've added a generation number to the splay tree head that gets incremented by io_del(). I'm undecided whether it should also be incremented by io_add(). Does this seem like the right direction? - todd diff --git a/src/event.c b/src/event.c index 33d205a..b60a6d7 100644 --- a/src/event.c +++ b/src/event.c @@ -387,71 +389,89 @@ bool event_loop(void) { Note that technic...

...terator due to a callback. It should be easy to > > detect that and only exit the loop early if that's really the case. I'll > > do that. > > How would you detect that? By checking whether the next node has > changed? I was thinking by setting a flag whenever we call io_del(), and checking that flag in the for-loop in event_loop(). > Changing the order of the events changes the index of which event > is returned by WSAWaitForMultipleEvents(). Moving the most recently > accessed event to the end gives the others a chance to proceed. But it doesn't order...

...index so avoid the need for splay_search(). That's great, less changes to the tree are good. > The value of event_count will change if a callback adds an event > so we need to handle that. > > I've added a generation number to the splay tree head that gets > incremented by io_del(). I'm undecided whether it should also be > incremented by io_add(). That would probably be nice to do, although the code in event.c doesn't depend on that. > Does this seem like the right direction? [...diff...] That all looks very good! -- Met vriendelijke groet / with kind r...