linux-kernel - Re: Syslets, Threadlets, generic AIO support, v6

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 31 May 2007 08:13:03 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
	Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@....com.au>,
	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Suparna Bhattacharya <suparna@...ibm.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: Syslets, Threadlets, generic AIO support, v6


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> > I agree. What would be a good interface to allocate fds in such 
> > area? We don't want to replicate syscalls, so maybe a special new 
> > dup function?
> 
> I'd do it with something like "newfd = dup2(fd, NONLINEAR_FD)" or 
> similar, and just have NONLINEAR_FD be some magic value (for example, 
> make it be 0x40000000 - the bit that says "private, nonlinear" in the 
> first place).
> 
> But what's gotten lost in the current discussion is that we probably 
> don't actually _need_ such a private space. I'm just saying that if 
> the *choice* is between memory-mapped interfaces and a private 
> fd-space, we should probably go for the latter. "Everything is a file" 
> is the UNIX way, after all. But there's little reason to introduce 
> private fd's otherwise.

it's both a flexibility and a speedup thing as well:

flexibility: for libraries to be able to open files and keep them open 
comes up regularly. For example currently glibc is quite wasteful in a 
number of common networking related functions (Ulrich, please correct me 
if i'm wrong), which could be optimized if glibc could just keep a 
netlink channel fd open and could poll() it for changes and cache the 
results if there are no changes (or something like that).

speedup: i suggested O_ANY 6 years ago as a speedup to Apache - 
non-linear fds are cheaper to allocate/map:

  http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg23820.html

(i definitely remember having written code for that too, but i cannot 
find that in the archives. hm.) In theory we could avoid _all_ fd-bitmap 
overhead as well and use a per-process list/pool of struct file buffers 
plus a maximum-fd field as the 'non-linear fd allocator' (at the price 
of only deallocating them at process exit time).

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