On 04/26/2018 02:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> At the risk of further muddying the waters, there's another minor tweak
> that could improve performance on certain workloads. Currently you mmap()
> a range for a given socket and then getsockopt() to receive. If you made
> it so you could mmap(
At the risk of further muddying the waters, there's another minor tweak
that could improve performance on certain workloads. Currently you mmap()
a range for a given socket and then getsockopt() to receive. If you made
it so you could mmap() something once for any number of sockets (by
mmapping /
On 04/25/2018 06:20 PM, Soheil Hassas Yeganeh wrote:
>
> Acked-by: Soheil Hassas Yeganeh
>
>
Thanks Soheil for reviewing.
I have changed setsockopt() to getsockopt() so chose to not carry your Acked-by
Please add it back if you agree, thanks !
On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 5:43 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> syzbot reported a lockdep issue caused by tcp mmap() support.
>
> I implemented Andy Lutomirski nice suggestions to resolve the
> issue and increase scalability as well.
>
> First patch is adding a new setsockopt() operation and changes mmap()
syzbot reported a lockdep issue caused by tcp mmap() support.
I implemented Andy Lutomirski nice suggestions to resolve the
issue and increase scalability as well.
First patch is adding a new setsockopt() operation and changes mmap()
behavior.
Second patch changes tcp_mmap reference program.
v2
