netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets

To: Mark Mielke <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RFC: per-socket statistics on received/dropped packets
From: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:45:31 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, <ltd@xxxxxxxxx>, <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20020610095702.A27037@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Mark Mielke wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 08:24:44AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> > I think i would agree with Dave for it to be an external patch. You
> > really only need this during debugging. I had a similar patch when
> > debugging NAPI about a year ago. I didnt find it that useful after
> > a while because i could deduce the losses from SNMP/netstat output.
>
> In your case you found that you could solve it once by debugging the
> application.
>
> This doesn't mean that other applications would not be better at
> determining the code path to use at execution time.
>
> Just because eth1 is behaving perfectly (i.e. low overall dropped UDP
> packets, or low TCP/IP retransmission) does not mean that a specific
> socket currently on eth1 heading to China should assume that it can
> take the 'average' observation as adequate for observing the specific
> socket.
>
> There *are* applications that would benefit from making this decision
> at run time on a socket-by-socket basis. It is not a common requirement
> for most desktop users, but it remains a valid requirement.
>

I am confused as to which application needs this, do you have one in mind?
AFAIK, UDP/RTP type apps already know how to determine packet loss
on a per flow basis.

> Providing it as a patch, can have the effect that it becomes more trouble
> than it is worth to grant other people access to the feature, especially
> from a corporate environment that has signed off on being able to release
> patches made to Linux back to the Linux source tree.
>

You may be confusing technical merit to mean the same thing as corporate
donation. In Linux its the later that counts.

> Seems somewhat of a loss...

Your mileage may vary. Consider this - you have the opp to at least
make the patch available. Imagine trying to convince windriver.

cheers,
jamal

>

> mark
>
> --
> mark@xxxxxxxxx/markm@xxxxxx/markm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> __________________________
> .  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
> |\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   |
> |  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
>
>   One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
>                        and in the darkness bind them...
>
>                            http://mark.mielke.cc/
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>