lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: posible latency issues in seq_read
Chris Friesen a écrit :
> Lee Revell wrote:
>> On 7/20/07, Chris Friesen <cfriesen@nortel.com> wrote:
>
>>> We've run into an issue (on 2.6.10) where calling "lsof" triggers lost
>>> packets on our server. Preempt is disabled, and NAPI is enabled.
>
>> Can you reproduce with a recent kernel? Lots of latency issues have
>> been fixed since then.
>
> Unfortunately I have to fix it on this version (the bug was found on
> shipped product), so if there was a difference I'd have to isolate the
> changes and backport them. Also, I can't run the software that triggers
> the problem on a newer kernel as it has dependencies on various patches
> that are not in mainline.
>
> Basically what I'd like to know is whether calling schedule() in
> seq_read() is safe or whether it would break assumptions made by
> seq_file users.
>

It wont help much. seq_read() is fine in itself.

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

files :

include/linux/sched.h
net/core/sock.c (__release_sock() latency)
net/ipv4/tcp_ipv4.c (/proc/net/tcp latency)


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-21 05:49    [W:0.075 / U:0.556 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site