lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] syscalls, x86: Add __NR_kcmp syscall
On Tue, 17 Jan 2012, 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.

so what you really want is a syscall that can take a list of objects
instead of having to do a syscall per object. right?

David Lang


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-01-18 23:09    [W:0.105 / U:0.388 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site