From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: Bug 7596 - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:55:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20061219.185525.41636407.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20061219103756.38f7426c@freekitty> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shemminger@osdl.org, mingo@elte.hu, akpm@osdl.org, wenji@fnal.gov, 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]:43283 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964794AbWLTCz0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:55:26 -0500 To: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Herbert Xu Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:52:19 +1100 > Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > I noticed this bit of discussion in tcp_recvmsg. It implies that a better > > queuing policy would be good. But it is confusing English (Alexey?) so > > not sure where to start. > > Actually I think the comment says that the current code isn't the > most elegant but is more efficient. It's just explaining the hierarchy of queues that need to be purged, and in what order, for correctness. Alexey added that code when I mentioned to him, right after we added the prequeue, that it was possible process the normal backlog before the prequeue, which is illegal. In fixing that bug, he added the comment we are discussing.