From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:07:42 +1100 Message-ID: <456EAD6E.6040709@yahoo.com.au> References: <20061130061758.GA2003@elte.hu> <20061129.223055.05159325.davem@davemloft.net> <20061130064758.GD2003@elte.hu> <20061129.231258.65649383.davem@davemloft.net> <20061130073504.GA19437@elte.hu> <20061130095232.GA8990@2ka.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ingo Molnar , David Miller , wenji@fnal.gov, akpm@osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from smtp105.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.215]:49282 "HELO smtp105.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S933881AbWK3KIf (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:08:35 -0500 To: Evgeniy Polyakov In-Reply-To: <20061130095232.GA8990@2ka.mipt.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 08:35:04AM +0100, Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote: > Doesn't the provided solution is just a in-kernel variant of the > SCHED_FIFO set from userspace? Why kernel should be able to mark some > users as having higher priority? > What if workload of the system is targeted to not the maximum TCP > performance, but maximum other-task performance, which will be broken > with provided patch. David's line of thinking for a solution sounds better to me. This patch does not prevent the process from being preempted (for potentially a long time), by any means. -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com