<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Den 3. nov. 2012 kl. 12:20 skrev Richard Oudkerk <<a href="mailto:shibturn@gmail.com" x-apple-data-detectors="true" x-apple-data-detectors-type="link" x-apple-data-detectors-result="1">shibturn@gmail.com</a>>:<br><br></span><blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">On 03/11/2012 9:22am, Sturla Molden wrote:<br></span></font></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">No, it does something completely different. It registers a callback function for a single event object and waits. We were talking about multiplexing a wait for more than 64 objects.<br></span></font></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></font></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">By using an appropriate callback you easily implement something like WaitForMultipleObjects() which does not have the 64 handle limit (without having to explicitly start any threads).<br></span></font></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><font color="#000000"><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br></span></font></blockquote><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"><br>But it uses a thread-pool that polls the registered wait objects, so the overhead (with respect to latency) will still be O(n). It does not matter if you ask Windows to allocate a thread-pool for the polling or if you do the polling yourself. It is still user-space threads that polls N objects with O(n) complexity. But if you nest WaitForMultipleObjects, you can get the latency down to O(log n). <br><br>IOCP is just an abstraction for a thread-pool and a FIFO. If you want to use a thread-pool and a FIFO to wait for something else than I/O there are easier ways. For example, you can use the queue functions in NT6 and enqueue whatever APC you want – or just use a list of threads and a queue in Python.<br><br>Sturla<br><br><br></span><span style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;"></span><br style="-webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.296875); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); "></body></html>