[ViewVC] Diff of: cvs/libev/ev.pod

Comparing libev/ev.pod (file contents):
Revision 1.385 by root, Tue Nov 29 15:10:05 2011 UTC vs.
Revision 1.399 by root, Mon Apr 2 23:14:41 2012 UTC

 It scales in the same way as the epoll backend, but the interface to the
 kernel is more efficient (which says nothing about its actual speed, of
 course). While stopping, setting and starting an I/O watcher does never
 cause an extra system call as with C<EVBACKEND_EPOLL>, it still adds up to
-two event changes per incident. Support for C<fork ()> is very bad (but
+two event changes per incident. Support for C<fork ()> is very bad (you
-sane, unlike epoll) and it drops fds silently in similarly hard-to-detect
+might have to leak fd's on fork, but it's more sane than epoll) and it
-cases
+drops fds silently in similarly hard-to-detect cases
 This backend usually performs well under most conditions.
 While nominally embeddable in other event loops, this doesn't work
 everywhere, so you might need to test for this. And since it is broken
 without a previous call to C<ev_suspend>.
 Calling C<ev_suspend>/C<ev_resume> has the side effect of updating the
 event loop time (see C<ev_now_update>).
-=item ev_run (loop, int flags)
+=item bool ev_run (loop, int flags)
 Finally, this is it, the event handler. This function usually is called
 after you have initialised all your watchers and you want to start
 handling events. It will ask the operating system for any new events, call
-the watcher callbacks, an then repeat the whole process indefinitely: This
+the watcher callbacks, and then repeat the whole process indefinitely: This
 is why event loops are called I<loops>.
 If the flags argument is specified as C<0>, it will keep handling events
 until either no event watchers are active anymore or C<ev_break> was
 called.
+The return value is false if there are no more active watchers (which
+usually means "all jobs done" or "deadlock"), and true in all other cases
+(which usually means " you should call C<ev_run> again").
 Please note that an explicit C<ev_break> is usually better than
 relying on all watchers to be stopped when deciding when a program has
 finished (especially in interactive programs), but having a program
 that automatically loops as long as it has to and no longer by virtue
 of relying on its watchers stopping correctly, that is truly a thing of
 beauty.
-This function is also I<mostly> exception-safe - you can break out of
+This function is I<mostly> exception-safe - you can break out of a
-a C<ev_run> call by calling C<longjmp> in a callback, throwing a C++
+C<ev_run> call by calling C<longjmp> in a callback, throwing a C++
 exception and so on. This does not decrement the C<ev_depth> value, nor
 will it clear any outstanding C<EVBREAK_ONE> breaks.
 A flags value of C<EVRUN_NOWAIT> will look for new events, will handle
 those events and any already outstanding ones, but will not wait and
 In this case, it would be more efficient to leave the C<ev_timer> alone,
 but remember the time of last activity, and check for a real timeout only
 within the callback:
+   ev_tstamp timeout = 60.;
    ev_tstamp last_activity; // time of last activity
+   ev_timer timer;
    static void
    callback (EV_P_ ev_timer *w, int revents)
    {
-     ev_tstamp now     = ev_now (EV_A);
+     // calculate when the timeout would happen
-     ev_tstamp timeout = last_activity + 60.;
+     ev_tstamp after = last_activity - ev_now (EV_A) + timeout;
-     // if last_activity + 60. is older than now, we did time out
+     // if negative, it means we the timeout already occured
-     if (timeout < now)
+     if (after < 0.)
        {
          // timeout occurred, take action
        }
      else
        {
-         // callback was invoked, but there was some activity, re-arm
+         // callback was invoked, but there was some recent
-         // the watcher to fire in last_activity + 60, which is
+         // activity. simply restart the timer to time out
-         // guaranteed to be in the future, so "again" is positive:
+         // after "after" seconds, which is the earliest time
-         w->repeat = timeout - now;
+         // the timeout can occur.
+         ev_timer_set (w, after, 0.);
-         ev_timer_again (EV_A_ w);
+         ev_timer_start (EV_A_ w);
        }
    }
-To summarise the callback: first calculate the real timeout (defined
+To summarise the callback: first calculate in how many seconds the
-as "60 seconds after the last activity"), then check if that time has
+timeout will occur (by calculating the absolute time when it would occur,
-been reached, which means something I<did>, in fact, time out. Otherwise
+C<last_activity + timeout>, and subtracting the current time, C<ev_now
-the callback was invoked too early (C<timeout> is in the future), so
+(EV_A)> from that).
-re-schedule the timer to fire at that future time, to see if maybe we have
-a timeout then.
-Note how C<ev_timer_again> is used, taking advantage of the
+If this value is negative, then we are already past the timeout, i.e. we
-C<ev_timer_again> optimisation when the timer is already running.
+timed out, and need to do whatever is needed in this case.
+Otherwise, we now the earliest time at which the timeout would trigger,
+and simply start the timer with this timeout value.
+In other words, each time the callback is invoked it will check whether
+the timeout cocured. If not, it will simply reschedule itself to check
+again at the earliest time it could time out. Rinse. Repeat.
 This scheme causes more callback invocations (about one every 60 seconds
 minus half the average time between activity), but virtually no calls to
 libev to change the timeout.
-To start the timer, simply initialise the watcher and set C<last_activity>
+To start the machinery, simply initialise the watcher and set
-to the current time (meaning we just have some activity :), then call the
+C<last_activity> to the current time (meaning there was some activity just
-callback, which will "do the right thing" and start the timer:
+now), then call the callback, which will "do the right thing" and start
+the timer:
+   last_activity = ev_now (EV_A);
-   ev_init (timer, callback);
+   ev_init (&timer, callback);
-   last_activity = ev_now (loop);
+   callback (EV_A_ &timer, 0);
-   callback (loop, timer, EV_TIMER);
-And when there is some activity, simply store the current time in
+When there is some activity, simply store the current time in
 C<last_activity>, no libev calls at all:
+   if (activity detected)
-   last_activity = ev_now (loop);
+     last_activity = ev_now (EV_A);
+When your timeout value changes, then the timeout can be changed by simply
+providing a new value, stopping the timer and calling the callback, which
+will agaion do the right thing (for example, time out immediately :).
+   timeout = new_value;
+   ev_timer_stop (EV_A_ &timer);
+   callback (EV_A_ &timer, 0);
 This technique is slightly more complex, but in most cases where the
 time-out is unlikely to be triggered, much more efficient.
-Changing the timeout is trivial as well (if it isn't hard-coded in the
-callback :) - just change the timeout and invoke the callback, which will
-fix things for you.
 =item 4. Wee, just use a double-linked list for your timeouts.
 If there is not one request, but many thousands (millions...), all
 employing some kind of timeout with the same timeout value, then one can
 If you ask a timer to call your callback after three seconds, then
 you expect it to be invoked after three seconds - but of course, this
 cannot be guaranteed to infinite precision. Less obviously, it cannot be
 guaranteed to any precision by libev - imagine somebody suspending the
-process a STOP signal for a few hours for example.
+process with a STOP signal for a few hours for example.
 So, libev tries to invoke your callback as soon as possible I<after> the
 delay has occurred, but cannot guarantee this.
 A less obvious failure mode is calling your callback too early: many event
 keep up with the timer (because it takes longer than those 10 seconds to
 do stuff) the timer will not fire more than once per event loop iteration.
 =item ev_timer_again (loop, ev_timer *)
-This will act as if the timer timed out and restarts it again if it is
+This will act as if the timer timed out, and restarts it again if it is
-repeating. The exact semantics are:
+repeating. It basically works like calling C<ev_timer_stop>, updating the
+timeout to the C<repeat> value and calling C<ev_timer_start>.
+The exact semantics are as in the following rules, all of which will be
+applied to the watcher:
+=over 4
-If the timer is pending, its pending status is cleared.
+=item If the timer is pending, the pending status is always cleared.
-If the timer is started but non-repeating, stop it (as if it timed out).
+=item If the timer is started but non-repeating, stop it (as if it timed
+out, without invoking it).
-If the timer is repeating, either start it if necessary (with the
+=item If the timer is repeating, make the C<repeat> value the new timeout
-C<repeat> value), or reset the running timer to the C<repeat> value.
+and start the timer, if necessary.
+=back
 This sounds a bit complicated, see L<Be smart about timeouts>, above, for a
 usage example.
 =item ev_tstamp ev_timer_remaining (loop, ev_timer *)
    ev_once (STDIN_FILENO, EV_READ, 10., stdin_ready, 0);
 =item ev_feed_fd_event (loop, int fd, int revents)
 Feed an event on the given fd, as if a file descriptor backend detected
-the given events it.
+the given events.
 =item ev_feed_signal_event (loop, int signum)
 Feed an event as if the given signal occurred. See also C<ev_feed_signal>,
 which is async-safe.
    {
      struct my_biggy big = (struct my_biggy *)
        (((char *)w) - offsetof (struct my_biggy, t2));
    }
+=head2 AVOIDING FINISHING BEFORE RETURNING
+Often you have structures like this in event-based programs:
+  callback ()
+  {
+    free (request);
+  }
+  request = start_new_request (..., callback);
+The intent is to start some "lengthy" operation. The C<request> could be
+used to cancel the operation, or do other things with it.
+It's not uncommon to have code paths in C<start_new_request> that
+immediately invoke the callback, for example, to report errors. Or you add
+some caching layer that finds that it can skip the lengthy aspects of the
+operation and simply invoke the callback with the result.
+The problem here is that this will happen I<before> C<start_new_request>
+has returned, so C<request> is not set.
+Even if you pass the request by some safer means to the callback, you
+might want to do something to the request after starting it, such as
+canceling it, which probably isn't working so well when the callback has
+already been invoked.
+A common way around all these issues is to make sure that
+C<start_new_request> I<always> returns before the callback is invoked. If
+C<start_new_request> immediately knows the result, it can artificially
+delay invoking the callback by e.g. using a C<prepare> or C<idle> watcher
+for example, or more sneakily, by reusing an existing (stopped) watcher
+and pushing it into the pending queue:
+   ev_set_cb (watcher, callback);
+   ev_feed_event (EV_A_ watcher, 0);
+This way, C<start_new_request> can safely return before the callback is
+invoked, while not delaying callback invocation too much.
 =head2 MODEL/NESTED EVENT LOOP INVOCATIONS AND EXIT CONDITIONS
 Often (especially in GUI toolkits) there are places where you have
 I<modal> interaction, which is most easily implemented by recursively
 invoking C<ev_run>.
    int exit_main_loop = 0;
    while (!exit_main_loop)
      ev_run (EV_DEFAULT_ EVRUN_ONCE);
-   // in a model watcher
+   // in a modal watcher
    int exit_nested_loop = 0;
    while (!exit_nested_loop)
      ev_run (EV_A_ EVRUN_ONCE);
      switch_to (libev_coro);
    }
 That basically suspends the coroutine inside C<wait_for_event> and
 continues the libev coroutine, which, when appropriate, switches back to
-this or any other coroutine. I am sure if you sue this your own :)
+this or any other coroutine.
 You can do similar tricks if you have, say, threads with an event queue -
 instead of storing a coroutine, you store the queue object and instead of
 switching to a coroutine, you push the watcher onto the queue and notify
 any waiters.
 with C<operator ()> can be used as callbacks. Other types should be easy
 to add as long as they only need one additional pointer for context. If
 you need support for other types of functors please contact the author
 (preferably after implementing it).
+For all this to work, your C++ compiler either has to use the same calling
+conventions as your C compiler (for static member functions), or you have
+to embed libev and compile libev itself as C++.
 Here is a list of things available in the C<ev> namespace:
 =over 4
 =item C<ev::READ>, C<ev::WRITE> etc.
 =item C<ev::io>, C<ev::timer>, C<ev::periodic>, C<ev::idle>, C<ev::sig> etc.
 For each C<ev_TYPE> watcher in F<ev.h> there is a corresponding class of
 the same name in the C<ev> namespace, with the exception of C<ev_signal>
 which is called C<ev::sig> to avoid clashes with the C<signal> macro
-defines by many implementations.
+defined by many implementations.
 All of those classes have these methods:
 =over 4
 If defined to be C<1>, libev will compile in support for the Linux inotify
 interface to speed up C<ev_stat> watchers. Its actual availability will
 be detected at runtime. If undefined, it will be enabled if the headers
 indicate GNU/Linux + Glibc 2.4 or newer, otherwise disabled.
+=item EV_NO_SMP
+If defined to be C<1>, libev will assume that memory is always coherent
+between threads, that is, threads can be used, but threads never run on
+different cpus (or different cpu cores). This reduces dependencies
+and makes libev faster.
+=item EV_NO_THREADS
+If defined to be C<1>, libev will assume that it will never be called
+from different threads, which is a stronger assumption than C<EV_NO_SMP>,
+above. This reduces dependencies and makes libev faster.
 =item EV_ATOMIC_T
 Libev requires an integer type (suitable for storing C<0> or C<1>) whose
 access is atomic and serialised with respect to other threads or signal
 contexts. No such type is easily found in the C language, so you can
 With an intelligent-enough linker (gcc+binutils are intelligent enough
 when you use C<-Wl,--gc-sections -ffunction-sections>) functions unused by
 your program might be left out as well - a binary starting a timer and an
 I/O watcher then might come out at only 5Kb.
+=item EV_API_STATIC
+If this symbol is defined (by default it is not), then all identifiers
+will have static linkage. This means that libev will not export any
+identifiers, and you cannot link against libev anymore. This can be useful
+when you embed libev, only want to use libev functions in a single file,
+and do not want its identifiers to be visible.
+To use this, define C<EV_API_STATIC> and include F<ev.c> in the file that
+wants to use libev.
+This option only works when libev is compiled with a C compiler, as C++
+doesn't support the required declaration syntax.
 =item EV_AVOID_STDIO
 If this is set to C<1> at compiletime, then libev will avoid using stdio
 functions (printf, scanf, perror etc.). This will increase the code size

Diff Legend

-–
+Removed lines
-+
+Added lines
-<
+Changed lines
->
+Changed lines

Comparing libev/ev.pod (file contents): Revision 1.385 by root, Tue Nov 29 15:10:05 2011 UTC vs. Revision 1.399 by root, Mon Apr 2 23:14:41 2012 UTC

Diff Legend

Comparing libev/ev.pod (file contents):
Revision 1.385 by root, Tue Nov 29 15:10:05 2011 UTC vs.
Revision 1.399 by root, Mon Apr 2 23:14:41 2012 UTC