[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51A46A21.9060305@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:26:09 +0300
From: Eliezer Tamir <eliezer.tamir@...ux.intel.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Dave Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
Don Skidmore <donald.c.skidmore@...el.com>,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, HPA <hpa@...or.com>,
Eilon Greenstien <eilong@...adcom.com>,
Or Gerlitz <or.gerlitz@...il.com>,
Alex Rosenbaum <alexr@...lanox.com>,
Eliezer Tamir <eliezer@...ir.org.il>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 net-next 3/5] tcp: add TCP support for low latency
receive poll.
On 28/05/2013 03:36, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-05-27 at 10:44 +0300, Eliezer Tamir wrote:
>> adds busy-poll support for TCP.
>>
>
> Really, this is a small changelog for such an addition :(
OK
> How poll()/epoll() is supported ?
poll()/select() are done by the code added to fs/select.c in 2/5.
epoll() is not yet supported.
>> diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>> index 9579e1a..4d82939 100644
>> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_input.c
>> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@
>> #include <linux/ipsec.h>
>> #include <asm/unaligned.h>
>> #include <net/netdma.h>
>> +#include <net/ll_poll.h>
>>
>
> Not sure why this include is needed in this file ?
>
> You added nothing else but this line.
This is a mistake, a remnant from an earlier version when sk_mark_ll()
was where we copy data to the socket.
I will remove it.
>> #include <net/netdma.h>
>> #include <net/secure_seq.h>
>> #include <net/tcp_memcontrol.h>
>> +#include <net/ll_poll.h>
>>
>> #include <linux/inet.h>
>> #include <linux/ipv6.h>
>> @@ -2011,6 +2012,7 @@ process:
>> if (sk_filter(sk, skb))
>> goto discard_and_relse;
>>
>> + sk_mark_ll(sk, skb);
>> skb->dev = NULL;
>>
>> bh_lock_sock_nested(sk);
>
> How IPv6 is handled ?
IPv6 is currently not supported (it was not supported in any version of
this patch set, the POC code in fact was hard-codded for UDPv4/TCPv4).
If there is interest, I will add it, I think it will not be complicated.
However, I would prefer to wait with that for a second stage.
My main concern is that adding IPv6 will significantly increase my
testing effort, which is already 90% of what I'm spending time on.
IMHO epoll() and a more robust support for select()/poll() should have
a higher priority, but I'm open to suggestions.
I would like to get what we have so far applied so more people can try
it, then work on all of the other things that we need.
Dave, I would like to hear your opinion on this, please.
-Eliezer
--
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