From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: Netchannles: first stage has been completed. Further ideas. Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:39:09 +0400 Message-ID: <20060721093909.GA14290@2ka.mipt.ru> References: <20060721071009.GA5151@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060721.004713.71097915.davem@davemloft.net> <20060721090610.GF5151@2ka.mipt.ru> <20060721.021955.104040230.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Cc: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from relay.2ka.mipt.ru ([194.85.82.65]:9443 "EHLO 2ka.mipt.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750812AbWGUJjY (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jul 2006 05:39:24 -0400 To: David Miller Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060721.021955.104040230.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 21, 2006 at 02:19:55AM -0700, David Miller (davem@davemloft.net) wrote: > From: Evgeniy Polyakov > Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 13:06:11 +0400 > > > Receiving side, nor matter if it is socket or netchannel, will drop > > packets (socket due to queue overfull, netchannels will not drop, but > > will not ack (it's maximum queue len is 1mb)). > > > > So both approaches behave _exactly_ the same. > > Did I miss something? > > Socket will not drop the packets on receive because sender will not > violate the window which receiver advertises, therefore there is no > reason to drop the packets. How come? sk_stream_rmem_schedule(), sk_rmem_alloc and friends... -- Evgeniy Polyakov