Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753295AbZAKM6W (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:58:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751764AbZAKM6F (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:58:05 -0500 Received: from matrixpower.ru ([195.178.208.66]:47558 "EHLO tservice.net.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751577AbZAKM6C (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:58:02 -0500 Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:58:00 +0300 From: Evgeniy Polyakov To: Eric Dumazet Cc: Willy Tarreau , David Miller , ben@zeus.com, jarkao2@gmail.com, mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: splice as many packets as possible at once Message-ID: <20090111125759.GB24173@ioremap.net> References: <4966F2F4.9080901@cosmosbay.com> <49677074.5090802@cosmosbay.com> <20090109185448.GA1999@1wt.eu> <4967B8C5.10803@cosmosbay.com> <20090109212400.GA3727@1wt.eu> <20090109220737.GA4111@1wt.eu> <4967CBB9.1060403@cosmosbay.com> <20090109221744.GA4819@1wt.eu> <20090109224258.GA10257@ioremap.net> <496850D5.8040907@cosmosbay.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <496850D5.8040907@cosmosbay.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1376 Lines: 36 Hi Eric. On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 08:40:05AM +0100, Eric Dumazet (dada1@cosmosbay.com) wrote: > > Not to interrupt the discussion, but for the clarification, that > > release_sock/lock_sock is used to process the backlog accumulated while > > socket was locked. And while dropping additional pair before the final > > release is ok, but moving this itself should be thought of twice. > > > > Hum... I just caught the release_sock(sk)/lock_sock(sk) done in skb_splice_bits() > > So : > > 1) the release_sock/lock_sock done in tcp_splice_read() is not necessary > to process backlog. Its already done in skb_splice_bits() Yes, in the tcp_splice_read() they are added to remove a deadlock. > 2) If we loop in tcp_read_sock() calling skb_splice_bits() several times > then we should perform the following tests inside this loop ? > > if (sk->sk_err || sk->sk_state == TCP_CLOSE || (sk->sk_shutdown & RCV_SHUTDOWN) || > signal_pending(current)) break; > > And removie them from tcp_splice_read() ? It could be done, but for what reason? To detect disconnected socket early? Does it worth the changes? -- Evgeniy Polyakov -- 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/