From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Hemminger Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx() Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:15:35 -0800 Message-ID: <20080303211535.03e3c81e@extreme> References: <47BDC848.50607@cosmosbay.com> <20080226.182120.183405235.davem@davemloft.net> <47C92F49.4070100@cosmosbay.com> <20080303.205558.114610030.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dada1@cosmosbay.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from mail.vyatta.com ([216.93.170.194]:38357 "EHLO mail.vyatta.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751041AbYCDFPl (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Mar 2008 00:15:41 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20080303.205558.114610030.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:55:58 -0800 (PST) David Miller wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet > Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 11:26:17 +0100 > > > You are absolutly right. We should guard against recursion, using a new field > > in "pcpu_lstats" (cheap access in a hot cache line as we have to update stats > > anyway) > ... > > [PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx() > > I'm willing to seriously entertain this change and stick it > into net-2.6.26 if you will perform a reasonable deep stack > test. > > For example, create an XFS filesystem, and mount it NFS over > loopback. Then stress it like crazy. > > See if this generates stack overflows or weird crashes. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Also (unrealistic) benchmarks often test loopback performance, so you should also check for performance gains/losses in things like netbench, netperf, tbench, etc.