From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261681AbVFPAYF (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:24:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261680AbVFPAYF (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:24:05 -0400 Received: from one.firstfloor.org ([213.235.205.2]:34793 "EHLO one.firstfloor.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261677AbVFPAYA (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2005 20:24:00 -0400 To: "David S. Miller" Cc: cndougla@purdue.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: TCP prequeue performance References: <20050615.164115.74747690.davem@davemloft.net> From: Andi Kleen Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 02:23:59 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20050615.164115.74747690.davem@davemloft.net> (David S. Miller's message of "Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:41:15 -0700 (PDT)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org "David S. Miller" writes: > > Not true, if this check does not pass, tp->ucopy.task is > never set, therefore prequeue processing is never performed. Oh well, here goes my nice theory :) > > This test must pass the first time, when both tp->ucopy.task > and user_recv are both NULL, in order for prequeue processing > to occur at all. > > So his change did totally disable prequeue. Then probably his test was latency bound somehow, but normally that should not affect system time, just wall time. I would perhaps compare context switch numbers and netstat -s output between the different runs and see if anything pops out. -Andi