From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: Q: netdev: generate kobject uevent on network events. Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:54:09 -0500 Message-ID: <20091209185409.GD32273@kvack.org> References: <20091209170251.GA11650@sig21.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Stezenbach , Stephen Hemminger , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org To: Kay Sievers Return-path: Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([205.233.56.17]:50201 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756814AbZLISyF (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:54:05 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 07:46:26PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote: > Can't, in some setups, these events happen at a rather high frequency? > I heard of people running many hundreds of ppp interfaces on a single > box acting as a DSL concentrator. /me waves Yes, DSL concentration is looking at tens of thousands to a hundred thousand interfaces on current hardware with 10G links. > They state to already have trouble > handling the amount of uevents generated on such boxes just for the > "add/remove" events of all the interfaces if something goes wrong with > the network. If we add more for state transitions, such events would > probably need to be rate-limited. In general, uevents/udev are not > really suitable for high-frequency events, and if such behavior can be > expected, we might better stick with the current netlink interface. Duplicating events in different delivery mechanisms seems pointless. A simple netlink listener can be done in less than a hundred lines, so I don't see the need for the duplication. -ben