Subject: Re: [Bug 106241] New: shutdown(3)/close(3) behaviour is incorrect for sockets in accept(3)

From: Alan Burlison <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:58:49 +0100

On 22/10/2015 12:30, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> We absolutely do not _want_ to do this just so that linux becomes slower
> to the point Solaris can compete, or you guys can avoid some work.

Sentiments such as that really have no place in a discussion that's been 
focussed primarily on the behaviour of interfaces, albeit with 
digressions into the potential performance impacts. The discussion has 
been cordial and I for one appreciate Al Viro's posts on the subject, 
from which I've leaned a lot. Can we please keep it that way? Thanks.

> close(fd) is very far from knowing a file is a 'listener' or even a
> 'socket' without extra cache line misses.
>
> To force a close of an accept() or whatever blocking socket related
> system call a shutdown() makes a lot of sense.
>
> This would have zero additional overhead for the fast path.

Yes, that would I believe be a significant improvement.

-- 
Alan Burlison
--