From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:55:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20061130.125506.99459321.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20061130203026.GD14696@elte.hu> <20061130.123853.10298783.davem@davemloft.net> <20061130204908.GA19393@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, wenji@fnal.gov, akpm@osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:38634 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031446AbWK3UzF (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:55:05 -0500 To: mingo@elte.hu In-Reply-To: <20061130204908.GA19393@elte.hu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Ingo Molnar Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:49:08 +0100 > So i dont support the scheme proposed here, the blatant bending of the > priority scale towards the TCP workload. I don't support this scheme either ;-) That's why my proposal is to find a way to allow input packet processing even during tcp_recvmsg() work. It is a solution that would give the TCP task exactly it's time slice, no more, no less, without the erroneous behavior of sleeping with packets held in the socket backlog.