Re: PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available

From: Chris Wedgwood (cw@f00f.org)
Date: Sat Jan 20 2001 - 19:34:33 EST

Next message: Jens Axboe: "Re: Minors remaining in Major 10 ??"
Previous message: Linus Torvalds: "Re: Is sendfile all that sexy?"
In reply to: Dan Maas: "Re: PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available"
Next in thread: Michael Lindner: "Re: PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available"
Reply: Michael Lindner: "Re: PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available"
Reply: Michael Lindner: "Re: PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 07:35:12PM -0500, Dan Maas wrote:

    Bingo! With this fix, 2.2.18 performance becomes almost identical to 2.4.0
    performance. I assume 2.4.0 disables Nagle by default on local
    connections...

2.4.x has a smarter nagle algorithm.

--cw

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Jens Axboe: "Re: Minors remaining in Major 10 ??"
Previous message: Linus Torvalds: "Re: Is sendfile all that sexy?"
In reply to: Dan Maas: "Re: PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available"
Next in thread: Michael Lindner: "Re: PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available"
Reply: Michael Lindner: "Re: PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available"
Reply: Michael Lindner: "Re: PROBLEM: select() on TCP socket sleeps for 1 tick even if data available"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 23 2001 - 21:00:23 EST