[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AD2B2BF.8040706@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:38:23 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, socketcan@...tkopp.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Generalize socket rx gap / receive queue overflow cmsg
(v4)
Neil Horman a écrit :
> Version 4
>
> Change Notes:
>
> 1) Remove the superfolous put_cmsg that I missed in the last version
>
> =======================================================================
>
> Create a new socket level option to report number of queue overflows
>
> Recently I augmented the AF_PACKET protocol to report the number of frames lost
> on the socket receive queue between any two enqueued frames. This value was
> exported via a SOL_PACKET level cmsg. AFter I completed that work it was
> requested that this feature be generalized so that any datagram oriented socket
> could make use of this option. As such I've created this patch, It creates a
> new SOL_SOCKET level option called SO_RXQ_OVFL, which when enabled exports a
> SOL_SOCKET level cmsg that reports the nubmer of times the sk_receive_queue
> overflowed between any two given frames. It also augments the AF_PACKET
> protocol to take advantage of this new feature (as it previously did not touch
> sk->sk_drops, which this patch uses to record the overflow count). Tested
> successfully by me.
>
> Notes:
>
> 1) Unlike my previous patch, this patch simply records the sk_drops value, which
> is not a number of drops between packets, but rather a total number of drops.
> Deltas must be computed in user space.
>
> 2) While this patch currently works with datagram oriented protocols, it will
> also be accepted by non-datagram oriented protocols. I'm not sure if thats
> agreeable to everyone, but my argument in favor of doing so is that, for those
> protocols which aren't applicable to this option, sk_drops will always be zero,
> and reporting no drops on a receive queue that isn't used for those
> non-participating protocols seems reasonable to me. This also saves us having
> to code in a per-protocol opt in mechanism.
>
> 3) This applies cleanly to net-next assuming that commit
> 977750076d98c7ff6cbda51858bb5a5894a9d9ab (my af packet cmsg patch) is reverted
>
> Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
Thanks Neil
I found no obvious error in this v4, except two long lines.
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
--
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