Re: posible latency issues in seq_read

[Eric Dumazet]

Chris Friesen a écrit :
> Lee Revell wrote:
> > On 7/20/07, Chris Friesen <cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/