[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140225.171723.153997808883782867.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 17:17:23 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: hannes@...essinduktion.org
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, yannick@...hler.name,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com, dan@...dstab.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2] unix: add read side socket memory
accounting for dgram sockets
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 21:08:11 +0100
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:49:27PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
>> Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 14:03:53 +0100
>>
>> > We still allocate dgram packets with sock_alloc_send_pskb, which now
>> > does normally not block if the socket has too many packets in flight.
>>
>> It seems like it does to me, it does sock_wait_for_wmem(), right?
>
> We still do the sock_wait_for_wmem in sock_alloc_send_pskb, correct,
> but we rarly block there, maybe in highly concurrent cases with big
> payloads where one process got interrupted to account the memory to the
> receiving socket.
>
>> Or are you trying to say that usually this is not the point at which
>> we block, but rather it's when we check the peer's receive queue?
>
> Exactly.
Just FYI, I'm not ignoring this patch, I'm just thinking about it a lot.
--
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