Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 15:31:30 -0400 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net> To: Sascha Schumann <sascha@schumann.cx> Cc: Valentin Nechayev <netch@iv.nn.kiev.ua>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: poll(2)'s arbitrary limit Message-ID: <20010617153129.N1832@superconductor.rush.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0106171356230.4306-100000@rossini.schumann.cx>; from sascha@schumann.cx on Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 02:23:20PM %2B0200 References: <20010617123008.A585@iv.nn.kiev.ua> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0106171356230.4306-100000@rossini.schumann.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Sascha Schumann <sascha@schumann.cx> [010617 08:24] wrote: > > > Also you can contribute code working with kevent(2), this will be > > more efficient ;) > > I've actually implemented that already with no significant > speed advantage; as various papers[1] have concluded, when > select and poll are used properly they are not as inefficient > as many people seem to assume. > > [1] http://www.citi.umich.edu/techreports/reports/citi-tr-00-4.pdf You've misinterpreted the paper. :( The way they use poll(2) "properly" is to use /dev/poll which is a really gross alternative to kevent(2) but close in functionality. As far as raising the amount of pollable entries, can you try your app with your kernel recompiled to accept 2xNO_FILE and 2xFD_SETSIZE and let us know if that solves your problem? -- -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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010617153129.N1832>