Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3)
From: Alan Burlison <hidden>
Date: 2015-10-22 04:17:59
On 22/10/2015 02:29, David Miller wrote:
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:51:04 +0100quoted
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 --