From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964790AbWDGPOP (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Apr 2006 11:14:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964797AbWDGPOP (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Apr 2006 11:14:15 -0400 Received: from pproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.166.183]:60579 "EHLO pproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964790AbWDGPOO (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Apr 2006 11:14:14 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=s1xyemykei9CKq1ErrtGPHqgmOpi6mX+JP195qd9mx7KK36GoJuZKh/H/dJwLmHh9eIB8EgDPFTLuc9dLOEKg2s/sMwVUuUGwAx1raxVumm6TiSWajJ6WCbqc2Eea3t7v3o8S309ckWMXsuLocopbdfXjMUs3/3P3JtVkOrKNVI= Message-ID: <443681D3.8000805@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 23:14:27 +0800 From: Yi Yang User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Evgeniy Polyakov CC: LKML , Andrew Morton , Matt Helsley Subject: Re: [2.6.16 PATCH] Filessytem Events Reporter V2 References: <4433C456.7010708@gmail.com> <20060407062428.GA31351@2ka.mipt.ru> <44361F39.4020501@gmail.com> <20060407094732.GA13235@2ka.mipt.ru> <443638D8.2010800@gmail.com> <20060407102602.GA27764@2ka.mipt.ru> In-Reply-To: <20060407102602.GA27764@2ka.mipt.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Evgeniy Polyakov 写道: > On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 06:03:04PM +0800, Yi Yang (yang.y.yi@gmail.com) wrote: > >>>> Can you explain why there is such a big difference between >>>> netlink_unicast and netlink_broadcast? >>>> >>>> >>> Netlink broadcast clones skbs, while unicasting requires the whole new >>> one. >>> >>> >> No, I also use clone to send skb, so they should have the same overhead. >> > > I missed that. > After rereading fsevent_send_to_process() I do not see how original skb > is freed though. > I'm considering how to free it, because cloned skbs share data with original skb, so this case is special, I try to clarify the logic of kfree_skb. > >>>>> Btw, you need some rebalancing of the per-cpu queues, probably in >>>>> keventd, since CPUs can go offline and your messages will stuck foreve >>>>> there. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Does keventd not do it? if so, keventd should be modified. >>>> >>>> >>> How does keventd know about your own structures? >>> You have an per-cpu object, but your keventd function gets object >>> >> >from running cpu, not from any other cpus. >> > >