Re: sendmsg blocking with sendtimeout vs. non-blocking

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 04:02:22PM -0400, Jim Rees wrote:
> Jeff Layton wrote:
> 
>   It sounds like what we should do for CIFS is the same thing. Set the
>   buffer sizes but make sure the SOCK_*BUF_LOCK bits are cleared so that
>   they can grow as needed.
> 
> You have to be careful about when you set them.  The old nfs code does it in
> the wrong place, just before the first read.  That's too late.  You have to
> do it just after accept().
> 
>   Does the kernel ever shrink these buffers?
> 
Yes.  Its not so much a buffer, but an allowable allocation threshold.  And it
should shrink see sk_*_free and its child functions.

Neil


-- 
/***************************************************
 *Neil Horman
 *Senior Software Engineer
 *Red Hat, Inc.
 *nhorman@xxxxxxxxxx
 *gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1
 *http://pgp.mit.edu
 ***************************************************/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux