[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20150412.230129.1277998183742216856.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 23:01:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] tcp/dccp: do not block bh too long in
inet_twdr_twkill_work()
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2015 18:52:37 -0700
> On Sun, 2015-04-12 at 21:04 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 04:19:07 -0700
>>
>> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>> >
>> > I have seen inet_twdr_twkill_work() blocking softirq for
>> > periods up to 1.5 seconds, depending on number of timewait sockets.
>> >
>> > This is an unacceptable source of latency.
>> >
>> > Note that inet_twdr_do_twkill_work() releases death_lock spinlock
>> > for every tw handled, but does not take care of bh enabling.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>>
>> I think it makes sense to use local_softirq_pending() here rather
>> than flip the lock unconditionally.
>
> I thought about that, but this meant having to test 2 conditions.
>
> Not sure we need this patch anyway, if we merge the 'tcp/dccp: get rid
> of central timewait timer' in 4.1
>
> Its not like it is a new bug ...
Yeah, since 4.0 is out already, probably just pass on this patch.
--
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