From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Burlison Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3) Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:35:31 +0100 Message-ID: <562A37A3.8000705@oracle.com> References: <20151021185104.GM22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20151021.182955.1434243485706993231.davem@davemloft.net> <5628636E.1020107@oracle.com> <20151022044458.GP22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <20151022060304.GQ22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <201510220634.t9M6YJLD017883@room101.nl.oracle.com> <20151022172146.GS22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <201510221824.t9MIOp6n003978@room101.nl.oracle.com> <20151022190701.GV22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <201510221951.t9MJp5LC005892@room101.nl.oracle.com> <20151022215741.GW22011@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <201510230952.t9N9qYZJ021998@room101.nl.oracle.com> <1445605340.22974.140.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Al Viro , David Miller , stephen@networkplumber.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, dholland-tech@netbsd.org To: Eric Dumazet , Casper.Dik@oracle.com Return-path: Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:26325 "EHLO userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751636AbbJWNfm (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Oct 2015 09:35:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1445605340.22974.140.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 23/10/2015 14:02, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> Other data is used to make sure that it only takes O(log(n)) to find the >> lowest available file descriptor entry. (Where n, I think, is the returned >> descriptor) > > Yet another POSIX deficiency. > > When a server deals with 10,000,000+ socks, we absolutely do not care of > this requirement. > > O(log(n)) is still crazy if it involves O(log(n)) cache misses. If you think it's a POSIX deficiency then logging a DR is probably the correct way of addressing that. And as I've said it's fine to decide that you don't care about what POSIX says on the subject but you can't simultaneously claim POSIX conformance. One or the other, not both. -- Alan Burlison --