On 22/10/2015 02:29, David Miller wrote:
From: Al Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:51:04 +0100
Sure, but the upkeep of data structures it would need is there
whether you actually end up triggering it or not. Both in
memory footprint and in cacheline pingpong...
+1
It's been said that the current mechanisms in Linux & some BSD variants
can be subject to races, and the behaviour exhibited doesn't conform to
POSIX, for example requiring the use of shutdown() on unconnected
sockets because close() doesn't kick off other threads accept()ing on
the same fd. I'd be interested to hear if there's a better and more
performant way of handling the situation that doesn't involve doing the
sort of bookkeeping Casper described,.
To quote one of my colleague's favourite sayings: Performance is a goal,
correctness is a constraint.
--
Alan Burlison
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
