[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5628CF79.2000507@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:58:49 +0100
From: Alan Burlison <Alan.Burlison@...cle.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, Casper.Dik@...cle.com
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, viro@...IV.linux.org.uk,
stephen@...workplumber.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
dholland-tech@...bsd.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect
for sockets in accept(3)
On 22/10/2015 12:30, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> We absolutely do not _want_ to do this just so that linux becomes slower
> to the point Solaris can compete, or you guys can avoid some work.
Sentiments such as that really have no place in a discussion that's been
focussed primarily on the behaviour of interfaces, albeit with
digressions into the potential performance impacts. The discussion has
been cordial and I for one appreciate Al Viro's posts on the subject,
from which I've leaned a lot. Can we please keep it that way? Thanks.
> close(fd) is very far from knowing a file is a 'listener' or even a
> 'socket' without extra cache line misses.
>
> To force a close of an accept() or whatever blocking socket related
> system call a shutdown() makes a lot of sense.
>
> This would have zero additional overhead for the fast path.
Yes, that would I believe be a significant improvement.
--
Alan Burlison
--
--
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