From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loopback: better handling of packet drops
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:22:30 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <49E87486.7090901@cosmosbay.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090417.035112.171173490.davem@davemloft.net>
David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
> Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 12:33:33 +0200
>
>> Splitting netif_rx() with a helper function boosts tbench
>> performance by 1%, because we can avoid two tests (about netpoll and
>> timestamping)
>
> Loopback is not a special device no matter how much you wish
> it might be :-)
>
> This is why I haven't really pursued any further those patches I
> showed you that treat local TCP connections specially, it just had the
> realy possibility to break clever things people might be doing over
> loopback using the packet scheduler classifier and packet scheduler
> actions.
Point taken.
>
> I also think it is valid to use netpoll over loopback, especially for
> testing.
Oh I didnt knew it was possible/useful, sorry about that.
>
> So please undo this part of the patch. You always try to combine
> multiple distinct changes, and I would have taken just your TX drop
> change if you hadn't added this __netif_rx() stuff to it :-(
I followed on this patch to show what I had in mind, and why
I thought it was a transmit error more than a receive one.
1) Do you reject idea of splitting netif_rx() to be able to
not freeing skb in case of congestion ?
2) If not, do you want me to send two separate patches ?
3) Should I update rx_errors or tx_errors or both ?
Thank you
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-17 12:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-16 19:58 [PATCH 2.6.30] Network Drop Monitor: Make use of consume_skb() in af_can.c Oliver Hartkopp
2009-04-17 8:38 ` David Miller
2009-04-17 8:56 ` [PATCH] loopback: packet drops accounting Eric Dumazet
2009-04-17 8:59 ` David Miller
2009-04-17 9:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-17 10:06 ` [PATCH] loopback: better handling of packet drops Eric Dumazet
2009-04-17 10:33 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-17 10:51 ` David Miller
2009-04-17 12:22 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2009-04-17 14:58 ` Stephen Hemminger
2009-04-17 15:05 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-04-18 8:03 ` [PATCH] loopback: packet drops accounting Eric Dumazet
2009-04-20 9:26 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=49E87486.7090901@cosmosbay.com \
--to=dada1@cosmosbay.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.