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: <4FFD9F18.6030401@candelatech.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:43:20 -0700 From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ycheng@...gle.com, dave.taht@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, codel@...ts.bufferbloat.net, therbert@...gle.com, mattmathis@...gle.com, nanditad@...gle.com, ncardwell@...gle.com, andrewmcgr@...il.com, Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] tcp: TCP Small Queues On 07/11/2012 08:25 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 08:16 -0700, Ben Greear wrote: > >> I haven't read your patch in detail, but I was wondering if this feature >> would cause trouble for applications that are servicing many sockets at once >> and so might take several ms between handling each individual socket. >> > > Well, this patch has no impact for such applications. In fact their > send()/write() will return to userland faster than before (for very > large send()) Maybe I'm just confused. Is your patch just mucking with the queues below the tcp xmit queues? From the patch description I was thinking you were somehow directly limiting the TCP xmit queues... If you are just draining the tcp xmit queues on a new/faster trigger, then I see no problem with that, and no need for a per-socket control. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com -- 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