linux-kernel - Re: Bug 7596 - 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20061219.211551.112620476.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:15:51 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	shemminger@...l.org
Cc:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, mingo@...e.hu, akpm@...l.org,
	wenji@...l.gov, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Bug 7596 - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:11:24 -0800

> It was the realtime/normal comments that piqued my interest.
> Perhaps we should either tweak process priority or remove
> the comments.

I mentioned that to Linus once and he said the entire
idea was bogus.

With the recent tcp_recvmsg() preemption issue thread,
I agree with his sentiments even more than I did previously.

What needs to happen is to liberate the locking so that
input packet processing can occur in parallel with
tcp_recvmsg(), instead of doing this bogus backlog thing
which can wedge TCP ACK processing for an entire quantum
if we take a kernel preemption while the process has the
socket lock held.
-
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/