From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:01:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:01:23 -0500 Received: from host154.207-175-42.redhat.com ([207.175.42.154]:7438 "EHLO lacrosse.corp.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:01:07 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 17:01:05 -0500 From: Benjamin LaHaise To: Alan Cox Cc: Brian Raymond , "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" Subject: Re: Async UDP I/O? Message-ID: <20011126170105.A15582@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <6A5AF4EA59EB214BB0267741CE2C86EF0E07F5@neptune.cuseeme.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 09:43:15PM +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 26, 2001 at 09:43:15PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > What do you mean by "asynchronous UDP" - all UDP is asynchronous. You ask > it to send it and it gets queued or dropped somewhere - its not subject > to flow control like TCP > > Can you explain more ? Async receive helps a lot when you've got tons of open sockets (needed to get queuing right). I think that the current tx mechanism is broken; it's quite useful to get backpressure from network devices for things like mlppp implemented the right way (as a network protocol, instead of its own layer). -ben