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
| ||
|
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