[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120403.173614.962252876842659412.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 17:36:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, ncardwell@...gle.com, therbert@...gle.com,
ycheng@...gle.com, hkchu@...gle.com, maze@...gle.com,
maheshb@...gle.com, ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi, nanditad@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: allow splice() to build full TSO packets
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:31:29 +0200
> The code in tcp_sendmsg() and do_tcp_sendpages() is similar (actually
> probably copy/pasted) but the thing is tcp_sendmsg() is called once per
> sendmsg() call (and the push logic is OK at the end of it), while a
> single splice() system call can call do_tcp_sendpages() 16 times (or
> even more if pipe buffer was extended by fcntl(F_SETPIPE_SZ))
Ok, so this means that in essence the tcp_mark_push should also only
be done in the final sendpage call.
And since I'm wholly convinced that the URG stuff is a complete
"don't care" for this path, I'm convinced your patch is the right
thing to do.
Applied to 'net' and queued up for -stable, thanks Eric.
> Maybe a real fix would be to call do_tcp_sendpages() exactly once, but I
> tried this today and found needed surgery was complex). Also this would
> lock socket for a long period and could add latencies because of backlog
> processing.
I don't think this is a good idea. Maybe we can do some level of
batching at some point, but it would need to have a limit.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists