Is there any historical information out there I can read that discusses why IOCP handles can't participate in WaitForMultipleObjects et al?
@cmuratori Or perhaps asking the question from a different angle, is there any discussion about why you can't wait on > 1 IOCP handle?
-
-
@cmuratori I'm assuming there was a specific kernel performance or complexity reason for it but I'm not sure what it would be. -
@cmuratori WaitForMultipleObjects() scan events linearly(= scheduling bias), IOCP is designed to avoid this. Makes sense to not make interop - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@cmuratori For IOCP's concurrency throttling to make much sense, you already want to limit yourself to one IOCP, right? -
@pervognsen@cmuratori As for WFMO, GetQueuedCompletionStatus is an atomic wait-and-dequeue, not just a wait. - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.