From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 7 15:30:07 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 960341065683 for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:30:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [209.31.154.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CBB08FC1D for ; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 15:30:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rwatson@FreeBSD.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [209.31.154.41]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4A2746C7D; Mon, 7 Jul 2008 11:30:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 16:30:06 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson X-X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Sergey Babkin In-Reply-To: <7100389.65001215443113960.JavaMail.root@vms074.mailsrvcs.net> Message-ID: <20080707162733.V63144@fledge.watson.org> References: <7100389.65001215443113960.JavaMail.root@vms074.mailsrvcs.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re: Proposal: a revoke() system call X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:30:07 -0000 On Mon, 7 Jul 2008, Sergey Babkin wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Jul 2008, Sergey Babkin wrote: >> >>> int revoke(int fd, int flags) >> >> Seems like that conflicts with our existing revoke(2) system call. You >> could > > Aha, I guess when I've checked, I've looked at a real old version of > FreeBSD. Sure, the name can be changed. I won't point you at the HISTORY section of the revoke(2) system call then :-). >> achieve something of the same end by opening /dev/null and then dup2()'ing >> to the file descriptor you want to revoke, perhaps? Right now there's a >> known > > That's a great idea. I haven't thought about it. It should do everything. Right, and possibly this means that no additional kernel support is required -- we just make it a libc or libutil interface. >> issue that calling close(2) on a socket from one thread doesn't interrupt a >> socket in a blocking I/O call from another thread -- you first have to call >> shutdown(2), and then close(2). This has caused problems for Java in the >> past, but I'm not sure that it's really a bug given that it's not >> unreasonable behavior not rejected by the spec :-). > > Maybe I'll see if I can fix that. Well, fixing this is easy -- instead of holding a reference to the file descriptor over the system call, hold a reference to the socket. The problem with that is that it creates a lot more contention on the socket locks when the reference count is dropped, not to mention more locking operations. This can be fixed but requires quite a lot of work, whereas this rather minor semantic issue is a non-problem in practice. I do have dealing with this reference issue on my todo list, but it's very low on the list because there are lots of other areas where we can significantly improve performance or semantics more easily and more quickly :-). Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge