From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jul 5 8: 9:57 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from hoser.devel (hoser.devel.redhat.com [207.175.42.139]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C6F14CFD for ; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 08:09:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from zab@zabbo.net) Received: from localhost (zab@localhost) by hoser.devel (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA22802; Mon, 5 Jul 1999 11:09:30 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: hoser.devel: zab owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 11:09:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Zach Brown X-Sender: zab@hoser To: Niall Smart Cc: Jonathan Lemon , Mike Smith , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: poll() scalability In-Reply-To: <3780B8D5.C32D210C@pobox.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > How about a modified sigwaitinfo that will return a number of waiting > siginfo -- of course this introduces the problem of deciding how long > to wait for new additions to the queue before returning. This is you'd just have a 'give me up to X' parameter, if you get a single one under high load they will queue up until you call it next time.. waiting around stinks, these operations usually want low latency. > could buffer siginfo's in user space, although this introduces > complexity if you want the ability to cancel queued signals... yes, that is the hard part :) -- zach - - - - - - 007 373 5963 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message