Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:06:24 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20061130.120624.107938624.davem@davemloft.net>
To: wenji@fnal.gov
Cc: akpm@osdl.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <HNEBLGGMEGLPMPPDOPMGMEAMCGAA.wenji@fnal.gov>
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
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 852
Lines: 20

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.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/