From: Chris Wedgwood <cw@f00f.org>
To: Michael Lindner <mikel@att.net>
Cc: Dan Maas <dmaas@dcine.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 20:07:27 +1300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010120200727.A1069@metastasis.f00f.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fa.nc2eokv.1dj8r80@ifi.uio.no> <fa.dcei62v.1s5scos@ifi.uio.no> <015e01c082ac$4bf9c5e0$0701a8c0@morph> <3A69361F.EBBE76AA@att.net>
In-Reply-To: <3A69361F.EBBE76AA@att.net>; from mikel@att.net on Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 01:54:23AM -0500
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 01:54:23AM -0500, Michael Lindner wrote:
You know, there's one other possibility, and that's if the data that is
being sent isn't actually arriving until the next clock tick, which
means the delay is in the appearance of sent data, not in select().
Given that the two processes are on the same machine, I would expect a
send() on a TCP socket to deliver the data to its destination faster
than that, however.
You can measure this latency; and it's indeed very low (lmbench gives
28 usecs on one of my machines).
If process A blocks waiting for data, and process B sleeps after
writing this data intended to wake process A, it should wake almost
immediately.
If you don't see this I would suspect an application bug -- can you
use strace or some such and confirm this is not the case?
--cw
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-01-20 7:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <fa.nc2eokv.1dj8r80@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <fa.dcei62v.1s5scos@ifi.uio.no>
[not found] ` <015e01c082ac$4bf9c5e0$0701a8c0@morph>
2001-01-20 6:54 ` PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available Michael Lindner
2001-01-20 7:07 ` Chris Wedgwood [this message]
2001-01-20 7:46 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-20 21:58 ` Edgar Toernig
2001-01-21 0:35 ` Dan Maas
2001-01-21 0:34 ` Chris Wedgwood
2001-01-21 1:22 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-21 1:29 ` David Schwartz
2001-01-21 3:20 ` Michael Lindner
2001-04-09 14:54 ` Stephen D. Williams
2001-04-09 19:16 ` James Antill
2001-04-10 18:29 ` Stephen D. Williams
2001-04-10 20:25 ` James Antill
2001-04-11 21:03 ` Stephen D. Williams
2001-04-12 0:09 ` James Antill
2001-01-24 20:31 ` Boris Dragovic
[not found] ` <3A694357.1A7C6AAC@att.net>
2001-01-20 9:41 ` Dan Maas
2001-01-20 17:26 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-24 23:56 Bernd Eckenfels
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-01-20 10:53 Bernd Eckenfels
2001-01-19 20:47 Michael Lindner
2001-01-19 23:20 ` David Schwartz
2001-01-20 2:30 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-20 3:27 ` David Schwartz
2001-01-20 4:37 ` Michael Lindner
2001-01-20 12:26 ` Martin MaD Douda
2001-01-20 11:39 ` Bjorn Wesen
2001-01-19 23:31 ` Chris Wedgwood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010120200727.A1069@metastasis.f00f.org \
--to=cw@f00f.org \
--cc=dmaas@dcine.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mikel@att.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox