On Friday 02 September 2011 15:10:47 Luka Perkov wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:32:18PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > On Friday 02 September 2011 12:55:08 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 12:39, Luka Perkov <open...@lukaperkov.net> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 10:46:37AM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > >> On Friday 02 September 2011 00:55:54 Luka Perkov wrote: > > > >> > Also in linux-2.6.39.4/kernel/Kconfig.preempt you will see for > > > >> > > > > >> > CONFIG_PREEMPT: > > > >> > Select this if you are building a kernel for a desktop or > > > >> > embedded system with latency requirements in the milliseconds > > > >> > range > > > > > > > > Please look at the kernel config file above. You will see that > > > > CONFIG_PREEMPT should be used on embedded systems... > > > > > > ... with latency requirements in the milliseconds range. > > > > Indeed, that's the part I am concerned with, along with the memory > > footprint. Any code should be able to work with and without Preemption > > enabled. Your patch remains a workaround for now. > > Please try to reproduce the issue with nmap on your devices. Run nmap > like I wrote on your PC and see what will your router do (you are > testing it's ability to handle many nat connections). >
I will try to reproduce the error, but you cannot argue that code should be able to work fine with PREEMPT enabled or not, I have seen crappy drivers only working with preemption enabled too, but this is not an excuse. > Try it with and without my patch and post what happened. This has a net impact on the resulting kernel size, here is what I get for ar7: - without preempt: 887 KB vmlinux.lzma - with preempt: 902 KB vmlinux.lzma this is quite a big increase. -- Florian _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
