| To: | Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] Yield in netlink_broadcast when congested |
| From: | Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 17 Oct 2004 13:08:07 +0200 |
| Cc: | Pablo Neira <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxx>, hadi@xxxxxxxxxx, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20041017073957.GA21632@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20041016113006.GA12843@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041016235137.GE19714@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20041017073957.GA21632@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
* Herbert Xu <20041017073957.GA21632@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2004-10-17 17:39 > On Sun, Oct 17, 2004 at 01:51:37AM +0200, Thomas Graf wrote: > > > So here is my proposal: if we detect signs of impending congestion > > > in netlink_broadcast(), and that we're in a sleepable context, then > > > we yield(). > > > > Up to how many receivers does that work? We would still see the > > effect if too many receivers are registered, right? > > Assuming the scheduler is fair then every listener should get their > time slice to receive the messages. Assuming there is only a few listeners per process. I tried it out and my UP system could handle 7 listeners in the same process but would sporadically overrun above. I couldn't reproduce it with 1 listener per process anymore. Therefore I guess this is fine for now, the problem might appear again if someone finally writes the netlink daemon to solve the locking problems. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: r8169: page allocation failure, Francois Romieu |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | IPsec tunnel mode bug - malformed, misaddressed packets, Christopher K. Johnson |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Yield in netlink_broadcast when congested, Herbert Xu |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC] Yield in netlink_broadcast when congested, Herbert Xu |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |