From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki Subject: Re: [PATCH] fragment: add fast path Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:24:14 +0900 Message-ID: <4C1592CE.5030501@linux-ipv6.org> References: <1276470995-21713-1-git-send-email-xiaosuo@gmail.com> <20100613.181857.189703148.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, pekkas@netcore.fi, jmorris@namei.org, kaber@trash.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki To: Changli Gao Return-path: Received: from 94.43.138.210.xn.2iij.net ([210.138.43.94]:41778 "EHLO mail.st-paulia.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754981Ab0FNCYW (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:24:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: NIC? --yoshfuji (2010/06/14 11:03), Changli Gao wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 9:18 AM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Changli Gao >> Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:16:35 +0800 >> >>> As the fragments are usually in order, >> >> In what universe does this happen "usually"? >> >> Linux has been outputting fragments in reverse order for more than 10 >> years. >> > > I have tested next-next-2.6 and darwin, and found they are both send > fragments in order: > > Darwin: > > Darwin localhost 9.8.0 Darwin Kernel Version 9.8.0: Wed Jul 15 > 16:55:01 PDT 2009; root:xnu-1228.15.4~1/RELEASE_I386 i386 i386 > > 09:53:26.891820 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 19628, offset 0, flags [+], > proto UDP (17), length 1500) 10.13.3.10.52189> 10.13.150.1.8888: UDP, > length 8192 > 09:53:26.892048 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 19628, offset 1480, flags [+], > proto UDP (17), length 1500) 10.13.3.10> 10.13.150.1: udp > 09:53:26.892229 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 19628, offset 2960, flags [+], > proto UDP (17), length 1500) 10.13.3.10> 10.13.150.1: udp > 09:53:26.892397 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 19628, offset 4440, flags [+], > proto UDP (17), length 1500) 10.13.3.10> 10.13.150.1: udp > 09:53:26.892529 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 19628, offset 5920, flags [+], > proto UDP (17), length 1500) 10.13.3.10> 10.13.150.1: udp > 09:53:26.892670 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 19628, offset 7400, flags > [none], proto UDP (17), length 820) 10.13.3.10> 10.13.150.1: udp > > Linux: > > Linux localhost 2.6.35-rc1 #88 SMP Sun Jun 13 14:25:07 CST 2010 x86_64 > Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux > > 08:01:53.730902 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1263, offset 0, flags [+], > proto UDP (17), length 1500) 10.13.150.50.45295> 10.13.150.1.8888: > UDP, length 8192 > 08:01:53.730955 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1263, offset 1480, flags [+], > proto UDP (17), length 1500) 10.13.150.50> 10.13.150.1: udp > 08:01:53.731113 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1263, offset 2960, flags [+], > proto UDP (17), length 1500) 10.13.150.50> 10.13.150.1: udp > 08:01:53.731139 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1263, offset 4440, flags [+], > proto UDP (17), length 1500) 10.13.150.50> 10.13.150.1: udp > 08:01:53.731280 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1263, offset 5920, flags [+], > proto UDP (17), length 1500) 10.13.150.50> 10.13.150.1: udp > 08:01:53.731306 IP (tos 0x0, ttl 64, id 1263, offset 7400, flags > [none], proto UDP (17), length 820) 10.13.150.50> 10.13.150.1: udp > > Later I'll test Windows. >