Why is epoll faster than select?

A typical server might be dealing with, say, 200 connections. It will service every connection that needs to have data written or read and then it will need to wait until there's more work to do. While it's waiting, it needs to be interrupted if data is received
on any of those 200 connections.

With 

select

,
the kernel has to add the process to 200 wait lists, one for each connection. To do this, it needs a "thunk" to attach the process to the wait list. When the process finally does wake up, it needs to be removed from all 200 wait lists and all those thunks
need to be freed.

By contrast, with 

epoll

,
the 

epoll

 socket
itself has a wait list. The process needs to be put on only that one wait list using only one thunk. When the process wakes up, it needs to be removed from only one wait list and only one thunk needs to be freed.

To be clear, with 

epoll

,
the 

epoll

 socket
itself has to be attached to each of those 200 connections. But this is done once, for each connection, when it is accepted in the first place. And this is torn down once, for each connection, when it is removed. By contrast, each call to 

select

that
blocks must add the process to every wait queue for every socket being monitored.

Ironically, with 

select

,
the largest cost comes from checking if sockets that have had no activity have had any activity. With 

epoll

,
there is no need to check sockets that have had no activity because if they did have activity, they would have informed the 

epoll

 socket
when that activity happened. In a sense, 

select

 polls
each socket each time you call 

select

 to
see if there's any activity while 

epoll

 rigs
is so that the socket activity itself notifies the process.