From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 16 16:42:16 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from superconductor.rush.net (superconductor.rush.net [208.9.155.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21A3137B411 for ; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:42:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@superconductor.rush.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by superconductor.rush.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5GNfu603288; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:41:56 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 19:41:55 -0400 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Sascha Schumann Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: poll(2)'s arbitrary limit Message-ID: <20010616194155.L1832@superconductor.rush.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0us In-Reply-To: ; from sascha@schumann.cx on Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 12:30:47AM +0200 X-all-your-base: are belong to us. Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Sascha Schumann [010616 19:03] wrote: > Hi, > > one of my applications uses the SGI State Threads Library > (I/O multiplexing scheduler). At its heart is a function > which concatenates the pollfd arrays of all threads and calls > poll(2). As sockets are shared between threads, the size of > the final pollfd array can easily be greater than > RLIMIT_NOFILE. Are you sure? #define RLIMIT_NOFILE 8 /* number of open files */ That would mean that the pollfd array is larger than the amount of open files you're allowed. I think it may be a good idea to actually allow double RLIMIT_NOFILE and FD_SETSIZE for flexibility. Anyone object? -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message