[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A940A10.60607@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:58:08 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
Nivedita Singhvi <niv@...ibm.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: UDP multicast packet loss not reported if TX ring overrun?
Christoph Lameter a écrit :
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>> Christoph Lameter a ?crit :
>>> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>
>>>> Please hold on, I would like to fully understand what's happening,
>>>> and test the patch :)
>>> Ok. It would be good if the drops would also be somehow noted by the UDP
>>> subsystem (one should see something with netstat -su) and may be even the
>>> socket. I see a drops column in /proc/net/udp. rx_drops, tx_drops?
>> This /proc/net/udp column is for rx_drops currently and was recently added...
>
> So lets rename it to rx_drops and then add tx_drops?
>
It wont be very nice, because it'll add yet another 32bits counter in each socket
structure, for a unlikely use. While rx_drops can happen if application is slow.
Also, tx_drops might be done later and not noticed.
Please read this old (and usefull) thread, with Alexey words...
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg00612.html
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/netdev/2002-10/msg00617.html
So I bet your best choice is to set IP_RECVERR, as mentioned in 2002 by Jamal and Alexey :)
--
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