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: <20061130.125506.99459321.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:55:06 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	mingo@...e.hu
Cc:	johnpol@....mipt.ru, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, 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

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:49:08 +0100

> So i dont support the scheme proposed here, the blatant bending of the 
> priority scale towards the TCP workload.

I don't support this scheme either ;-)

That's why my proposal is to find a way to allow input packet
processing even during tcp_recvmsg() work.  It is a solution that
would give the TCP task exactly it's time slice, no more, no less,
without the erroneous behavior of sleeping with packets held in the
socket backlog.
-
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/