| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:22:06 +0300 From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, wenji@...l.gov, akpm@...l.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 09:07:42PM +1100, Nick Piggin (nickpiggin@...oo.com.au) 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. It steals timeslices from other processes to complete tcp_recvmsg() task, and only when it does it for too long, it will be preempted. Processing backlog queue on behalf of need_resched() will break fairness too - processing itself can take a lot of time, so process can be scheduled away in that part too. > -- > SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. > Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com -- Evgeniy Polyakov - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists