Re: [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR_kcmp syscall

[KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com>]

(1/18/12 3:01 AM), Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 01:35:00PM -0800, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> "H. Peter Anvin"<hpa@zytor.com>  writes:
>>
>>> On 01/17/2012 06:44 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 04:38:14PM +0200, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>>>> On 1/17/12, Cyrill Gorcunov<gorcunov@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>>> +#define KCMP_EQ		0
>>>>>> +#define KCMP_LT		1
>>>>>> +#define KCMP_GT		2
>>>>>
>>>>> LT and GT are meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I found symbolic names better than open-coded values. But sure,
>>>> if this is problem it could be dropped.
>>>>
>>>> Or you mean that in general anything but 'equal' is useless?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why on Earth would user space need to know which order in memory certain
>>> kernel objects are?
>>
>> For checkpoint restart and for some other kinds of introspection what is
>> needed is a comparison function to see if two processes share the same
>> object.  The most interesting of these objects from a checkpoint restart case
>> are file descriptors, and there can be a lot of file descriptors.
>>
>> The order in memory does not matter.  What does matter is that the
>> comparison function return some ordering between objects.  The algorithm
>> for figuring out of N items which of them are duplicates is O(N^2) if
>> the comparison function can only return equal or not equal.  The
>> algorithm for finding duplications is only O(NlogN) if the comparison
>> function will return an ordering among the objects.
>
> Yes, thanks Eric, I missed this text in patch description, my bad. And
> yes, performance will degrade with plain eq/ne approach. But as Pavel
> stated in another email

I think Eric only said gt/lt compare is useful. We don't need to expose bare
pointer order. example, kcmp(rotate(ptr, per-task-random-value)) is enough
hide the critical information. I think.