On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 09:42:58AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> [Not sure why original author is not in CC; added]
>>
>> Hello Alexey,
>>
>> On 09/24/2017 10:06 PM, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>> > From: Aliaksandr Patseyenak <Aliaksandr_Patseyenak1@xxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Implement system call for bulk retrieveing of opened descriptors
>> > in binary form.
>> >
>> > Some daemons could use it to reliably close file descriptors
>> > before starting. Currently they close everything upto some number
>> > which formally is not reliable. Other natural users are lsof(1) and CRIU
>> > (although lsof does so much in /proc that the effect is thoroughly buried).
>> >
>> > /proc, the only way to learn anything about file descriptors may not be
>> > available. There is unavoidable overhead associated with instantiating
>> > 3 dentries and 3 inodes and converting integers to strings and back.
>> >
>> > Benchmark:
>> >
>> > N=1<<22 times
>> > 4 opened descriptors (0, 1, 2, 3)
>> > opendir+readdir+closedir /proc/self/fd vs fdmap
>> >
>> > /proc 8.31 ą 0.37%
>> > fdmap 0.32 ą 0.72%
>>
>> From the text above, I'm still trying to understand: whose problem
>> does this solve? I mean, we've lived with the daemon-close-all-files
>> technique forever (and I'm not sure that performance is really an
>> important issue for the daemon case) .
>
>> And you say that the effect for lsof(1) will be buried.
>
> If only fdmap(2) is added, then effect will be negligible for lsof
> because it has to go through /proc anyway.
>
> The idea is to start process. In ideal world, only bynary system calls
> would exist and shells could emulate /proc/* same way bash implement
> /dev/tcp
Then start the process by doing it for real and making it obviously
useful. We should not add a pair of vaguely useful, rather weak
syscalls just to start a process of modernizing /proc.
>
>> So, who does this new system call
>> really help? (Note: I'm not saying don't add the syscall, but from
>> explanation given here, it's not clear why we should.)
>
> For fdmap(2) natural users are lsof(), CRIU.
lsof does:
int
main(argc, argv)
int argc;
char *argv[];
{
...
if ((MaxFd = (int) GET_MAX_FD()) < 53)
MaxFd = 53;
for (i = 3; i < MaxFd; i++)
(void) close(i);
The solution isn't to wrangle fdmap(2) into this code. The solution
is to remove the code entirely.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
