This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author neologix
Recipients giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, jcea, neologix, pitrou, sbt, trent
Date 2013-01-22.16:01:54
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
In-reply-to <>
> If only one byte is available, recv(4096) should simply return a partial result.

Of course, but how do you know if there's data left to read without
calling select() again? It's much better to call read() until you get
EAGAIN than calling select() between each read()/write() call.

> Wouldn't you just get a partial write (assuming an AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM socket)?

For SOCK_STREAM, yes, not for SOCK_DGRAM (or for a pipe when trying to
write more than PIPE_BUF, although I guess any sensible implementation
doesn't report the pipe write ready if there's less than PIPE_BUF
space left).

> It's a design decision and a huge performance win. It's one of the areas
> where POSIX read in its strictest form cripples your performance.

Yes, he's referring to the fact that there are cases where you could
avoid some spurious notifications, but that would incur a performance
hit: that's exactly the same rationale behind condition variables
spurious wakups: since the user-code must be prepared to handle
spurious notifications, let's take advantage of it.

But there are been various fixes in the past years to avoid spurious
notifications in epoll() for example, because while they allow certain
optimizations in the kernel, spurious wakeups can cost to user-level

I'm 99% sure that Linux isn't the only OS allowing spurious wakeups,
since it's essentially an unsolvable issue (temporary shortage of
buffer, or the example given by Alan Cox of a pipe with two
Date User Action Args
2013-01-22 16:01:55neologixsetrecipients: + neologix, gvanrossum, jcea, pitrou, giampaolo.rodola, trent, sbt
2013-01-22 16:01:54neologixlinkissue16507 messages
2013-01-22 16:01:54neologixcreate