[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FD2E22F.9090503@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 09:42:07 +0400
From: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@...hat.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] af_unix: speedup /proc/net/unix
On 08.06.2012 19:03, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>
> /proc/net/unix has quadratic behavior, and can hold unix_table_lock for
> a while if high number of unix sockets are alive. (90 ms for 200k
> sockets...)
Two comments, nitpicking...
[]
> struct unix_iter_state {
> struct seq_net_private p;
> - int i;
> };
Can't seq_net_private be used directly?
> +static struct sock *unix_next_socket(struct seq_file *seq,
> + struct sock *sk,
> + loff_t *pos)
> +{
....
> }
>
> static void *unix_seq_next(struct seq_file *seq, void *v, loff_t *pos)
> {
> + return unix_next_socket(seq, v, pos);
> }
Why unix_seq_next() is needed? Can't unix_next_socket() be used directly instead?
Thanks,
/mjt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists