From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jul 16 07:19:26 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 308A91065682;
	Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:19:26 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com)
Received: from mail.bitblocks.com (mail.bitblocks.com [64.142.15.60])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179448FC15;
	Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:19:25 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com)
Received: from bitblocks.com (localhost.bitblocks.com [127.0.0.1])
	by mail.bitblocks.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F8145B4D;
	Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:19:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?=
	<Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:37:00 PDT."
	<m2r69ug1nn.wl%Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org> 
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:19:25 -0700
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
Message-Id: <20080716071925.2F8145B4D@mail.bitblocks.com>
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>,
	Thomas Vogt <freebsdlists@bsdunix.ch>
Subject: Re: too many open file descriptors messages since bind 9.4.2-P1
	(port dns94) 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:19:26 -0000

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:37:00 PDT JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <Jinmei_Tatuya@isc.org>  wrote:
> 
> Perhaps You're probably confused poll(2) with /dev/poll.  The latter
> behaves as you described (but is not portable as poll(2)).

Indeed I am confused.  Not sure where I got that idea. 

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:17:04 PDT Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>  wrote:
> Bakul Shah wrote:
> > ...
> > Presumably kqueue has a lower cpu usage until the system gets
> > loaded at which point polling might win.
> 
> I don't think so, since kqueue only runs code associated with events
> that have actually happened, and then only once until it's processed
> where las I looked poll had more to do on each call.

Yes. poll/select overhead of scanning the entire list is
incurred on each system call + the kernel overhead (as Alfred
pointed out later).

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:42:54 +1000 Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au>
wrote:

> Note that, based on sys_generic.c in 7.x and -CURRENT, poll(2) is
> limited to checking FD_SETSIZE descriptors, whilst select(2) has
> no upper limit.

I strike out here as well. I should've read the code much
more carefully or tested select() before opening my mouth.

All in all it was not a good idea to post anything.  My
apologies for wasting everyone's time.  And thanks all for
correcting me without any flaming!