Message291280
| Author | neologix |
|---|---|
| Recipients | giampaolo.rodola, neologix, vstinner, yselivanov |
| Date | 2017-04-07.17:34:58 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <CAH_1eM16mPO+PkyR2Psn3=MndaioHdzeWAc+KNb1BUdGiib=dw@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1491567877.48.0.947926348403.issue30014@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> I don't think that selector.modify() can be a bottleneck, but IMHO the change is simple and safe enough to be worth it. In a network server with 10k client, an optimization making .modify() 1.52x faster is welcomed. IMHO it complicates the code for little benefit: that's why I asked for a realistic benchmark. This patch could made modify() 10x faster, if modify() only accounts for 1% of the overall overhead in a realistic use-case, then it's not worth it. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2017-04-07 17:34:58 | neologix | set | recipients: + neologix, vstinner, giampaolo.rodola, yselivanov |
| 2017-04-07 17:34:58 | neologix | link | issue30014 messages |
| 2017-04-07 17:34:58 | neologix | create | |