From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Sridhar Samudrala <sri@us.ibm.com>,
Nivedita Singhvi <niv@us.ibm.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: UDP multicast packet loss not reported if TX ring overrun?
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:08:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A941AA6.5070506@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0908251258000.26329@gentwo.org>
Christoph Lameter a écrit :
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>>> The initial point was that the SNMP counters are not updated if IP_RECVERR
>>> is not set which is clearly a bug and your and my patch addresses that.
>> Technically speaking, the send() syscall is in error. Frame is not sent, so
>> there is no drop at all. Like trying to send() from a bad user buffer, or write()
>> to a too big file...
>
> Frame is submitted to the IP layer which discards it. That is the
> definition of an output discard.
>
Last patch accounts for this *error* AFAIK, or did I missed something ?
>> Question is : should we just allow send() to return an error (-ENOBUF) regardless
>> of IP_RECVERR being set or not ? I dont think it would be so bad after all.
>> Most apps probably dont care, or already handle the error.
>
> Some applications will then start to fail because so far you can send with
> impunity without getting errors. AFAICT IP_RECVERR was added to preserve
> that behavior. Your patch is changing basic send() semantics.
Sorry ???, I guess your machines have plenty available LOWMEM then, and kmalloc() never fail then...
man P send
ENOBUFS
Insufficient resources were available in the system to perform the operation.
basic send() semantics are respected.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-25 17:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 73+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-17 20:01 UDP multicast packet loss not reported if TX ring overrun? Christoph Lameter
2009-08-17 20:40 ` Nivedita Singhvi
2009-08-17 20:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-17 21:50 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2009-08-17 22:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-17 22:43 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2009-08-17 22:52 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-17 22:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-18 0:12 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2009-08-18 0:25 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-24 17:40 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-24 22:02 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-08-24 22:36 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2009-08-25 13:48 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-25 19:03 ` David Stevens
2009-08-25 19:08 ` David Miller
2009-08-25 19:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-25 19:56 ` Joe Perches
2009-08-25 22:35 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2009-08-26 14:08 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-26 14:22 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-08-26 15:27 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-26 16:29 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-26 17:50 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2009-08-26 19:09 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-26 22:11 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2009-08-27 15:40 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-27 20:23 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-28 13:53 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-28 15:07 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-08-28 16:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-28 17:26 ` [PATCH net-next-2.6] ip: Report qdisc packet drops Eric Dumazet
2009-08-29 6:38 ` David Miller
2009-08-31 12:09 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-09-02 1:41 ` David Miller
2009-09-02 14:43 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-09-02 16:11 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2009-09-02 16:20 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-09-02 19:37 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-09-02 16:05 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-09-02 22:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-09-03 1:05 ` David Miller
2009-09-03 17:57 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-09-03 14:12 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-09-03 18:35 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-09-02 18:22 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-09-03 1:09 ` David Miller
2009-08-28 19:26 ` UDP multicast packet loss not reported if TX ring overrun? David Miller
2009-08-28 20:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-28 20:04 ` David Miller
2009-08-28 19:24 ` David Miller
2009-08-28 19:53 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-28 20:03 ` David Miller
2009-08-28 20:09 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-30 0:21 ` Mark Smith
2009-08-25 13:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-25 13:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-08-25 14:00 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-25 15:32 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-08-25 15:35 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-25 15:58 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-08-25 16:11 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-25 16:27 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-08-25 16:36 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-25 16:48 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-08-25 17:01 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-25 17:08 ` Eric Dumazet [this message]
2009-08-25 17:44 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-25 17:53 ` Christoph Lameter
2009-08-25 18:38 ` Sridhar Samudrala
2009-08-24 23:14 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-08-25 6:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2009-08-25 13:45 ` Christoph Lameter
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=4A941AA6.5070506@gmail.com \
--to=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=niv@us.ibm.com \
--cc=sri@us.ibm.com \
/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.