On Tuesday 07 April 2015 15:23:24 Keane, Erich wrote: > Our biggest CPU intensity currently is watching the ethernet/wifi > adapters for change and JSON parsing/generation. Otherwise we are > pretty low-hit.
In an ideal world, "watching" should not be CPU intensive. It should require exactly 0 cycles in user-space to watch: you call select(2) or poll(2) or equivalent, then sleep until something of interest happens. Anything that requires spending CPU time is a flawed design. In real world, we have to put up with flawed APIs from libraries we use. I don't know if Linux netlink supports watching for configuration changes. > I agree that a solid audit to remove a bunch of the threading would be a > great feature as well, but I suspect that SOME threading would be > necessary, but it could definitely make the glib2 less necessary. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
