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 majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
