socket.recvfrom() & sendto()
grante at visi.com
Thu May 10 16:52:12 CEST 2001
In article <9ddbbj$pkk$1 at 22.214.171.124>, Donn Cave wrote:
>|>|> It is never "stalled" at a select(); asyncore uses non-blocking
>|>|> sockets. select() returns immediately with lists of those sockets
>|>|> which are ready to write and those sockets which are ready to read.
>|>| So it's in a busy-wait loop burning CPU time when there's
>|>| nothing to do? That's just plain evil...
>|> what makes you think any operating system would implement
>|> select in that way?
>| It was claimed that the program was never "stalled" at a
>But from what I can tell, whether asyncore sockets are blocking
>or non-blocking makes no difference. It does use select to
>dispatch, and select does block.
OK, so it _does_ "stall" in the select() when there's nothing
to do. That is a good thing.
>I have no idea why asyncore sets its sockets to nonblocking.
Don't know about that, I was just surprised at the claim that
asyncore didn't block on select().
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'LL get it!! It's
at probably a FEW of my
visi.com ITALIAN GIRL-FRIENDS!!
More information about the Python-list