[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1201181404480.6780@asgard.lang.hm>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:05:31 -0800 (PST)
From: david@...g.hm
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>,
Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Vasiliy Kulikov <segoon@...nwall.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
Subject: Re: [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR_kcmp syscall
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:
>
>> On 01/17/2012 06:44 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 04:38:14PM +0200, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/12, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
>>>>> +#define KCMP_EQ 0
>>>>> +#define KCMP_LT 1
>>>>> +#define KCMP_GT 2
>>>>
>>>> LT and GT are meaningless.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I found symbolic names better than open-coded values. But sure,
>>> if this is problem it could be dropped.
>>>
>>> Or you mean that in general anything but 'equal' is useless?
>>>
>>
>> Why on Earth would user space need to know which order in memory certain
>> kernel objects are?
>
> For checkpoint restart and for some other kinds of introspection what is
> needed is a comparison function to see if two processes share the same
> object. The most interesting of these objects from a checkpoint restart case
> are file descriptors, and there can be a lot of file descriptors.
>
> The order in memory does not matter. What does matter is that the
> comparison function return some ordering between objects. The algorithm
> for figuring out of N items which of them are duplicates is O(N^2) if
> the comparison function can only return equal or not equal. The
> algorithm for finding duplications is only O(NlogN) if the comparison
> function will return an ordering among the objects.
so what you really want is a syscall that can take a list of objects
instead of having to do a syscall per object. right?
David Lang
--
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