| 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
| ||
|
Message-id: <HNEBLGGMEGLPMPPDOPMGIEANCGAA.wenji@fnal.gov> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:42:58 -0600 From: Wenji Wu <wenji@...l.gov> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, johnpol@....mipt.ru Cc: nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...l.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: RE: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP > 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. It does steal timeslices from other processes to complete tcp_recvmsg() task. But I do not think it will take long. When processing backlog, the processed packets will go to the receive buffer, the TCP flow control will take effect to slow down the sender. The data receiving process might be preempted by higher priority processes. Only the data recieving process stays in the active array, the problem is not that bad because the process might resume its execution soon. The worst case is that it expires and is moved to the active array with packets within the backlog queue. wenji - 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