From: Francois Romieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:09:47 +0100
> Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : > [...] > > Does it really need to be particularly aggressive about that? How often > > are there great streams of small packets sitting in a socket buffer? One > > really only cares when the system starts getting memory challenged right? > > Until then does it really matter if there are 100 64 byte chunks of data > > sitting in 1500 byte buffers? > > It is hard to believe that a poor placement of data and extra bloat do not > matter. Also, perhaps Rick has never watched the packet trace while playing a networked game such as quake3. It's a constant full-on stream of 64-byte UDP packets ;-) Without copybreak, it's pretty easy to overrun the UDP socket's receive queue and you'll lose some game events when that happens. It's also not about a memory challenged system, the individual socket buffer limits are what matters. And that is severely hampered when a 1500 byte buffer is holding a 64-byte packet. The socket gets charged for the 1500 byte buffer, and that charge goes towards the per-socket receive buffer limits. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
