2 ms·
> Paired with the fact it's not much faster in practice than epoll in a large majority of usecases, I really worry it's going to footgun some people. "it's not
by dralley 5y ago
> Paired with the fact it's not much faster in practice than epoll in a large majority of usecases, I really worry it's going to footgun some people.
"it's not faster than epoll" is somewhat dependent on your hardware and kernel. For one thing, Jens Axobe has been working on a lot of io-uring optimizations lately, but you probably won't see them unless you're using a kernel from the last few months. And by "a lot" I really mean 3x to 4x faster in the last year on the benchmarks he has been using.
So if all your comparisons are on an enterprisey linux distro, you probably aren't getting a complete picture of epoll vs io-uring performance. epoll has been around a while, it's had more hours poured into optimization and probably regresses less frequently.
- hinkley 5y agoAnd here I am waiting around for a runtime to get the memo that the denominator on cost:benefit is going up, and for them to convince libraries to use to stop watching and waiting and act on it, for the changes to stabilize and then for my coworkers and I to get off our duffs and upgrade to that version of the code. These pipelines can be pretty deep and fairly long if you're not writing systems code.