From: Wenji Wu <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:56:58 -0600
> >We could also pepper tcp_recvmsg() with some very carefully placed
> >preemption disable/enable calls to deal with this even with
> >CONFIG_PREEMPT enabled.
>
> I also think about this approach. But since the "problem" happens in
> the 2.6 Desktop and Low-latency Desktop (not server), system
> responsiveness is a key feature, simply placing preemption
> disabled/enable call might not work. If you want to place
> preemption disable/enable calls within tcp_recvmsg, you have to put
> them in the very beginning and end of the call. Disabling preemption
> would degrade system responsiveness.
We can make explicitl preemption checks in the main loop of
tcp_recvmsg(), and release the socket and run the backlog if
need_resched() is TRUE.
This is the simplest and most elegant solution to this problem.
The one suggested in your patch and paper are way overkill, there is
no reason to solve a TCP specific problem inside of the generic
scheduler.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
