| To: | feldy@xxxxxxxx (Bob Felderman) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Re: possible bug x86 2.4.2 SMP in IP receive stack] |
| From: | kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Thu, 8 Mar 2001 22:49:01 +0300 (MSK) |
| Cc: | feldy@xxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxx, andrewm@xxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, pp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <Pine.SUN.4.21.0103081133350.5124-100000@orion.myri.com> from "Bob Felderman" at Mar 8, 1 11:38:08 am |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Hello! > [root@rcc intel_linux]# cat /proc/net/softnet_stat > 00fe20ec 0000ae4e 00000ece 000000b6 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 > 0012e228 > 00eff495 0000b941 000010d0 000000cc 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 > 0006f8bd Yes, statistics is sad. Each ~300th frame is lost, serious latency problems. Is this without zerocopy? I still hope, it looks better with it. > I'd like them to go away, but UDP losees due to socket overflows > are quite common on most operating systems. Well, provided we do not attach gigabit interface to 20MHz i386 and do not experience floods of tiny frames, all the rest is problem of user. If he selects enough high rcvbuf and do not sleep instead of working, he may expect that kernel will not not lose. Alexey |
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Fwd: Re: possible bug x86 2.4.2 SMP in IP receive stack], Bob Felderman |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | initial acenic ZC cleanup, Jes Sorensen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Fwd: Re: possible bug x86 2.4.2 SMP in IP receive stack], Bob Felderman |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Fwd: Re: possible bug x86 2.4.2 SMP in IP receive stack], Andi Kleen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |