[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080303211535.03e3c81e@extreme>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:15:35 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: dada1@...mosbay.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of
netif_rx()
On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:55:58 -0800 (PST)
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
> Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:26:17 +0100
>
> > You are absolutly right. We should guard against recursion, using a new field
> > in "pcpu_lstats" (cheap access in a hot cache line as we have to update stats
> > anyway)
> ...
> > [PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx()
>
> I'm willing to seriously entertain this change and stick it
> into net-2.6.26 if you will perform a reasonable deep stack
> test.
>
> For example, create an XFS filesystem, and mount it NFS over
> loopback. Then stress it like crazy.
>
> See if this generates stack overflows or weird crashes.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Also (unrealistic) benchmarks often test loopback performance, so you
should also check for performance gains/losses in things like
netbench, netperf, tbench, etc.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists