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-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
