Re: posible latency issues in seq_read

Eric Dumazet wrote:

The problem is in established_get_next() and established_get_first() not allowing softirq processing, while scanning a possibly huge hash table, even if few sockets are hashed in.

As cond_resched_softirq() was added in linux-2.6.11, you probably *need* to check the diffs between linux-2.6.10 & linux-2.6.11

Thanks for the pointers to the likely culprits.

Chris
-
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/

---

• References:
  • posible latency issues in seq_read
    • From: "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]>
  • Re: posible latency issues in seq_read
    • From: "Lee Revell" <[email protected]>
  • Re: posible latency issues in seq_read
    • From: "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]>
  • Re: posible latency issues in seq_read
    • From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 07/10] Task Containers(V11): Automatic userspace notification of idle containers
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 3/8] i386: bitops: Rectify bogus "+m" constraints
• Previous by thread: Re: posible latency issues in seq_read
• Next by thread: [PATCH 1/7] i386: fix section mismatch warning in smpboot.c
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]