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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).