Re: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] nfds limit for poll() raised to 131 million (is that enough?)

From: Jamie Lokier (lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jan 20 2000 - 12:42:59 EST

Next message: David Woodhouse: "Re: Constant byteorder macros."
Previous message: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com: "Re: Userland Kernel Download Tool"
In reply to: Tigran Aivazian: "Re: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] nfds limit for poll() raised to 131 million (is that enough?)"
Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] nfds limit for poll() raised to 131 million (is that enough?)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> > Excellent idea!
>
> hmmm, you think so? I felt a bit embarrased after posting it because I
> thought it was not such a good idea because one would have to reorganize
> the way we pass parameters to do_poll() completely.

I think the main potential benefit is saving memory in all those blocked
applications. Of course you'd want to apply the same optimisation to
do_select().

enjoy,
-- Jamie

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: David Woodhouse: "Re: Constant byteorder macros."
Previous message: dg50@daimlerchrysler.com: "Re: Userland Kernel Download Tool"
In reply to: Tigran Aivazian: "Re: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] nfds limit for poll() raised to 131 million (is that enough?)"
Next in thread: Alan Cox: "Re: [patch-2.3.40-pre6] nfds limit for poll() raised to 131 million (is that enough?)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:23 EST