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: <20061130202034.GB14696@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:20:34 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Wenji Wu <wenji@...l.gov>
Cc:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>,
	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, akpm@...l.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP


* Wenji Wu <wenji@...l.gov> wrote:

> >The solution is really simple and needs no kernel change at all: if 
> >you want the TCP receiver to get a larger share of timeslices then 
> >either renice it to -20 or renice the other tasks to +19.
> 
> Simply give a larger share of timeslices to the TCP receiver won't 
> solve the problem.  No matter what the timeslice is, if the TCP 
> receiving process has packets within backlog, and the process is 
> expired and moved to the expired array, RTO might happen in the TCP 
> sender.

if you still have the test-setup, could you nevertheless try setting the 
priority of the receiving TCP task to nice -20 and see what kind of 
performance you get?

	Ingo
-
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/