linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20061130.120624.107938624.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:06:24 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	wenji@...l.gov
Cc:	akpm@...l.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP

From: Wenji Wu <wenji@...l.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@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/