From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752689Ab1HSJ3N (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:29:13 -0400 Received: from mx.ctc-g.co.jp ([131.248.58.1]:34973 "EHLO mx.ctc.ctc-g.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751906Ab1HSJ3K (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2011 05:29:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:28:45 +0900 From: "Jun.Kondo" Subject: Re: [omega-g1:10937] Re: [PATCH] net: configurable sysctl parameter "net.core.tcp_lowat" for sk_stream_min_wspace() In-reply-to: <20110814.224714.2061635645365376268.davem@davemloft.net> To: David Miller Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, omega-g1@ctc-g.co.jp, notsuki@redhat.com, motokazu.kozaki@hp.com, htaira@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, tomohiko.takahashi@ctc-g.co.jp, kotaro.sakai@ctc-g.co.jp, ken.sugawara@ctc-g.co.jp Reply-to: jun.kondo@ctc-g.co.jp Message-id: <4E4E2CCD.6050809@ctc-g.co.jp> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-post-Received: by post02.ctc-g.co.jp (CTC-GN 2006/10/01) id B8A2076F6; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:28:53 +0900 (JST) X-vs: by localhost.is01.ctc-g.co.jp (CTC-GN mail 2009/02/01) id A05885BEF3; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:28:53 +0900 (JST) X-vs: by is01.ctc-g.co.jp (CTC-GN mail 2009/02/01) id 94CED5BEEE; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 18:28:53 +0900 (JST) References: <4E48B0C3.2010203@ctc-g.co.jp> <20110814.224714.2061635645365376268.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; ja; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Thunderbird/3.1.6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org You suggested to use non-blocking writes, but we think we have to rewrite the Apache code if doing so. That is, we have to make a modification to Apache that depends on the architecture. By using this patch, it can be handled by changing the configuration a little bit on the kernel side for such applications that it is difficult to do so on application side. (2011/08/15 14:47), David Miller wrote: > From: "Jun.Kondo" > Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 14:38:11 +0900 > >> 2. to limit the block time of the write in order to >> prevent the timeout of upper layer applications >> even when the connection has low throughput, such >> as low rate streaming > Use non-blocking writes if you want this behavior. >