[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706071243090.6445@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 12:49:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
cc: Kyle Moffett <mrmacman_g4@....com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [patch 7/8] fdmap v2 - implement sys_socket2
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Davide, are you sure we want FIFO for non sequential allocations ?
>
> This tends to use all the fmap slots, and not very cache friendly
> if an app does a lot of [open(),...,close()] things. We already got a
> perf drop because of RCUification of file freeing (FIFO mode instead
> of LIFO given by kmalloc()/kfree())
>
> If the idea behind this FIFO was security (ie not easy for an app to predict
> next glibc file handle), we/glibc might use yet another FD_SECUREMODE flag,
> wich ORed with O_NONSEQFD would ask to fdmap_newfd() to take the tail of
> fmap->slist, not head.
Uli, would it be OK to rely only on base randomization and use a LIFO
instead? We have base randomization, plus LIFO does not mean strictly
sequential like legacy allocator, just more compatc and cache friendly.
- Davide
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists