Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754490AbZAKRKx (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:10:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752597AbZAKRKl (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:10:41 -0500 Received: from gw2.cosmosbay.com ([86.64.20.130]:36151 "EHLO gw2.cosmosbay.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752396AbZAKRKk convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:10:40 -0500 X-Greylist: delayed 4130 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Sun, 11 Jan 2009 12:10:40 EST Message-ID: <496A17A5.7010200@cosmosbay.com> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:00:37 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Evgeniy Polyakov 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 References: <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> <20090111125759.GB24173@ioremap.net> <4969F0D1.8020504@cosmosbay.com> <20090111133533.GB25337@ioremap.net> In-Reply-To: <20090111133533.GB25337@ioremap.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-1.6 (gw2.cosmosbay.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:00:41 +0100 (CET) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1424 Lines: 31 Evgeniy Polyakov a ?crit : > On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 02:14:57PM +0100, Eric Dumazet (dada1@cosmosbay.com) wrote: >>>> 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. >> Could you elaborate ? A deadlock only if !SPLICE_F_NONBLOCK ? > > Sorry, I meant that we drop lock in skb_splice_bits() to prevent the deadlock, > and tcp_splice_read() needs it to process the backlog. While we drop lock in skb_splice_bits() to prevent the deadlock, we also process backlog at this stage. No need to process backlog again in the higher level function. > > I think that even with non-blocking splice that release_sock/lock_sock > is needed, since we are able to do a parallel job: to receive new data > (scheduled by early release_sock backlog processing) in bh and to > process already received data via splice codepath. > Maybe in non-blocking splice mode this is not an issue though, but for > the blocking mode this allows to grab more skbs at once in skb_splice_bits. skb_splice_bits() operates on one skb, you lost me :) -- 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/