--- David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Nagendra Tomar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:55:58 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > I agree that setting SOCK_NOSPACE would have been a more elegant
> > fix. Infact I thought a lot about that before deciding on this fix.
>
> I guess this means you also noticed that you are removing
> the one and only test of this bit too?
>
> You can't remove this, it's critical for performance.
I'm sure you would have seen value in the check that's why the
check is there.
Now we have two critical points to discuss
1. How can we achieve the ET EPOLLOUT event with the SOCK_NOSPACE
check in place ?
2. How much effect will removing the check have (if we cannot
find a way to get the ET EPOLLOUT notification w/ the check
in place) ?
Regding (2), IMHO for a "fast sender" the SOCK_NOSPACE check will
almost always pass as the sender will come back to write (or poll)
before the prev data is drained out. If he doesn't do that, he is
not a "fast sender" by definition". A "fast sender" should always
have some data to send when he practically (per the sndbuf space)
can.
For a "slow sender", do we really care abt the optimization ?
Thanx,
Tomar
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
-
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/
