On Thu, 21 May 2009 04:45:03 pm David Miller wrote:
> Probably the most profitable avenue is to see if this is a real issue
> afterall (see above). If we can get away with having the socket
> buffer represent socket --> device space only, that's the most ideal
> solution. It will probably also im
David Miller wrote:
> From: Rusty Russell
> Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 16:27:05 +0930
>
>> On Tue, 19 May 2009 12:10:13 pm David Miller wrote:
>>> What you're doing by orphan'ing is creating a situation where a single
>>> UDP socket can loop doing sends and monopolize the TX queue of a
>>> device. T
From: Rusty Russell
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 16:27:05 +0930
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 12:10:13 pm David Miller wrote:
>> What you're doing by orphan'ing is creating a situation where a single
>> UDP socket can loop doing sends and monopolize the TX queue of a
>> device. The only control we have over a
On Tue, 19 May 2009 12:10:13 pm David Miller wrote:
> From: Rusty Russell
> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 22:18:47 +0930
> > We check for finished xmit skbs on every xmit, or on a timer (unless
> > the host promises to force an interrupt when the xmit ring is empty).
> > This can penalize userspace tasks
From: Rusty Russell
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 22:18:47 +0930
> We check for finished xmit skbs on every xmit, or on a timer (unless
> the host promises to force an interrupt when the xmit ring is empty).
> This can penalize userspace tasks which fill their sockbuf. Not much
> difference with TSO, b
We check for finished xmit skbs on every xmit, or on a timer (unless
the host promises to force an interrupt when the xmit ring is empty).
This can penalize userspace tasks which fill their sockbuf. Not much
difference with TSO, but measurable with large numbers of packets.
There are a finite num
