From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20061130.120624.107938624.davem@davemloft.net>
References: <20061129.181950.31643130.davem@davemloft.net>
	<HNEBLGGMEGLPMPPDOPMGMEAMCGAA.wenji@fnal.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:21656
	"EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1031292AbWK3UGX (ORCPT <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:06:23 -0500
To: wenji@fnal.gov
In-Reply-To: <HNEBLGGMEGLPMPPDOPMGMEAMCGAA.wenji@fnal.gov>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

From: Wenji Wu <wenji@fnal.gov>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:08:22 -0600

> If the higher prioirty processes become runnable (e.g., interactive
> process), you better yield the CPU, instead of continuing this process. If
> it is the case that the process within tcp_recvmsg() is expriring, then, you
> can continue the process to go ahead to process backlog.

Yes, I understand this, and I made that point in one of my
replies to Ingo Molnar last night.

The only seemingly remaining possibility is to find a way to allow
input packet processing, at least enough to emit ACKs, during
tcp_recvmsg() processing.