Den 3. nov. 2012 kl. 00:54 skrev Antoine Pitrou firstname.lastname@example.org:
Or a simpler solution than nesting them into a tree: Let the calls to WaitForMultipleObjects time out at once, and loop over as many events as you need, polling 64 event objects simultaneously.
Well, that's basically O(number of objects), isn't it?
Yes, but nesting would be O(log64 n).
No, you still have O(n) calls to WaitForMultipleObjects, just arranged differently. (in other words, the depth of your tree is O(log n), but its number of nodes is O(n))
True, but is the time latency O(n) or O(log n)?
Also, from what I read, the complexity of select.poll is O(n) with respect to file handles, so this should not be any worse (O(log n) katency wait, O(n) polling) I think.
Another interesting strategy for high-performance on Windows 64: Just use blocking i/o and one thread per client. The stack-space limitation is a 32-bit problem, and Windows 64 has no problem scheduling an insane number of threads. Even desktop computers today can have 16 GB of RAM, so there is virtually no limitation on the number of i/o threads Windows 64 can multiplex.
But would it scale with Python threads and the GIL as well? You would be better to answer that.