On 12/11/06, Zhu Han <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/12/06, Kevin Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 12/11/06, Zhu Han <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ah, that's a good point. We're pretty sure it was 0, which means > allow as many as physical processors, but if it was 1, that would > explain it. Another clue with this is that if the first thread > blocked (in our test we called Sleep(60000), one of the other IOCP > threads would then be able to pop that sockets completion > notification. If the number is 0, the platform is UP and the IOCP thread never blocks at any point, it is possible another thread will never get the chance be waken up.
Right that's what I understand from MSDN. We all have dual CPU development boxes at my shop, but...
Can you reproduce the CPU affinity problem?
I couldn't reproduce it yesterday, using my code, on my dual CPU box. I was too busy too spend more than a few minutes on it though. I'm thinking my coworker must have been using a UP box. This is unexpected behavior (for me) though. I would think if you have one thread in a while(1) ; loop, another thread would eventually get a time slice and pop the completion from the IOCP. Kevin _______________________________________________ Libevent-users mailing list Libevent-users@monkey.org http://monkey.org/mailman/listinfo/libevent-users
