[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <q2p412e6f7f1004220754ye723ac1aoc291048312b5818f@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 22:54:27 +0800
From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>,
Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] net: batch skb dequeueing from softnet input_pkt_queue
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
> It does make a difference, Damn it.
>
> I really really start to think you dont read what I wrote, or you dont
> care.
I misunderstood it. Sorry.
>
> Damn, cant you update all the things at once, taking this lock only
> once ?
>
> You focus having an ultra precise count of pkt_queue.len, but we dont
> care at all ! We only want a _limit_, or else the box can be killed by
> DOS.
>
> If in practice this limit can be 2*limit, thats OK.
>
> Cant you understand this ?
>
>
> We need one limit. Not two limits.
>
> I already told you how to do it, but you ignored me and started yet
> another convoluted thing.
>
>
> process_backlog() transfert the queue to its own queue and reset pkt_len
> to 0 (Only once)
>
> End of story.
>
> Maximum packet queued to this cpu softnet_data will be 2 * old_limit.
>
> So what ?
>
Now, I think I really understand. We don't need a precious limit. So
only a additional queue is enough.
--
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@...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