RFC: poll change
Quoted 4 lines · David S. Miller
The standard also says that any pollfd with (fd < 0) is ignored. Holes are explicitly ALLOWED.
Dude, it ignores negative fds, check fs/select.c:do_pollfd()
Right - we're running in circles.
The standard says negative fd's are ignored. We get that right. What we are left with is an overly paranoid check against max_fds. This check should go away. You should be able to pass in up to your rlimit fds, and let negative ones (holes or tails) be ignored.
I'm attaching a patch :).
Am I still not making the problem clear?
Signature · 4 lines
Tim Hockin Systems Software Engineer Sun Microsystems, Cobalt Server Appliances [email protected]
Index: fs/select.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvs/linux-2.4/fs/select.c,v
retrieving revision 1.5
select.c +1 -4
@@ -416,11 +416,8 @@int nchunks, nleft;/* Do a sanity check on nfds ... */ -if (nfds >NR_OPEN ) +if (nfds > current->rlim[RLIMIT_NOFILE ].rlim_cur)return -EINVAL ; - -if (nfds > current->files->max_fds) - nfds = current->files->max_fds;if (timeout) {/* Careful about overflow in the intermediate values */
From: Tim Hockin <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 16:53:43 -0700
The standard says negative fd's are ignored. We get that right. What we are left with is an overly paranoid check against max_fds. This check should go away. You should be able to pass in up to your rlimit fds, and let negative ones (holes or tails) be ignored.
I am saying there is no problem.
In both cases, for a properly written application we ignore the invalid fds. The behavior is identical both before and after your change, so there is no reason to make it.
Later,
David S. Miller
[email protected]
Review
Quoted 2 lines · Tim Hockin
(quoted diff) +1
-1- if (nfds > NR_OPEN) + if (nfds > current->rlim[RLIMIT_NOFILE].rlim_cur)
Here SuS speaks about OPEN_MAX, not sure if OPEN_MAX corresponds to the current ulimit or to the absolute maximum (to me it sounds more like our NR_OPEN).
Andrea
From: Andrea Arcangeli <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 02:11:10 +0200
Review
Quoted 2 lines · Tim Hockin
(quoted diff) +1
-1- if (nfds > NR_OPEN) + if (nfds > current->rlim[RLIMIT_NOFILE].rlim_cur)
Here SuS speaks about OPEN_MAX, not sure if OPEN_MAX corresponds to the current ulimit or to the absolute maximum (to me it sounds more like our NR_OPEN).
Right, and our equivalent is "NR_OPEN".
Ok, I think I see what you and Tim are trying to say. I'm thinking in a select() minded way which is why I didn't understand :-)
Yeah, the check can be removed, but anyone who cares about performance won't pass in huge arrays of -1 entries if only the low few pollfd entries are actually useful.
Later,
David S. Miller
[email protected]
Quoted 8 lines · David S. Miller
From: Andrea Arcangeli <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 16:13:18 +0200I was backporting the new version to 2.2 and I noticed that by using
NR_OPENan luser will actually be able to lock into RAM something of the order of the dozen mbytes per process.He can do this with page tables too :-)
Since 2.2 we have the free_pgtables to release the pagetables under unused pgd slots, that was used to work pretty well last time I checked.
Andrea
Quoted 3 lines · Andrea Arcangeli
Since 2.2 we have the
free_pgtablesto release the pagetables under unused pgd slots, that was used to work pretty well last time I checked.
Funny you mention that: I noticed a while back that actually it doesn't work well with i386 PAE - presumably looks for an empty 1GB.
Hugh
Quoted 7 lines · Hugh Dickins
Quoted 3 lines · Andrea Arcangeli
Since 2.2 we have the
free_pgtablesto release the pagetables under unused pgd slots, that was used to work pretty well last time I checked.Funny you mention that: I noticed a while back that actually it doesn't work well with i386 PAE - presumably looks for an empty 1GB.
correct, we'd need the equivalent for the pmd too, this applies to the other 3-level (or more) pagetables archs too.
Andrea