[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061130102205.GA20654@2ka.mipt.ru>
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