[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130220223703.GB16194@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 23:37:03 +0100
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Cc: mtk.manpages@...il.com, Andrey Vagin <avagin@...nvz.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, criu@...nvz.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ptrace: add ability to retrieve signals without
removing them from a queue
On 02/19, Pavel Emelyanov wrote:
>
> On 02/19/2013 11:34 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > But, given that every PEEK does list_for_each() until it finds the
> > necessary sequence number, I am wondering how this O(n**2) will work
> > if you want to dump 126065 signals ;)
>
> Isn't it the great reason for making the addr point to a structure, that
> would look like
>
> struct siginfo_peek_arg {
> unsigned flags; /* all bits but 0th, that selects between private/shared
> queues, should be zero */
> unsigned int off; /* from which siginfo to start */
> unsigned int nr; /* how may siginfos to take */
> };
I am fine either way, to me everything looks better than signalfd
hacks.
But if you meant "avoid n^2", this won't help? You can't do
copy_siginfo_to_user() under ->siglock, so you need to restart
list_for_each() anyway.
Oleg.
--
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