On Mon, 2006-07-08 at 17:59 +0200, Edgar E. Iglesias wrote: > Ok, I thought you wanted the code inside the ifdefs to be considered. If not, > I guess there is no problem. Yes, the forwarding case does not suffer from > any deadlocks issues that I am aware of. >
>From my tests: It does _not_ provide any performance improvements and at some point i decided i didnt want to add more variables to analyze, so i got rid of it; I would have had to hand edit the patch to totally remove it; so that why you still see the ifdefed out variant. > No, the deadlock happens only if you don't prune the descriptors. If the host > sends some data and then goes quite, fdesc < tx_ring->prunet might not be > true for a long time and skbs will end up sitting in the tx ring indefinitely, > charging the socket's sndbuf. > Note: I didnt get rid of the rx path pruning. i.e that is still on. It just prunes lesser descriptors with that change on the tx. So not very different from before. I think i may be getting a gist now of the discussion after a re-read; while packets are still charged to TCP may have been transmitted they may sit on the tx ring forever. They will only be pruned if we had netif_stopped (and even that is not good enough with Jesse's threshold check) or if a new packet comes in destined for us. Did i understand correctly? If yes, i didnt introduce this challenge it has always been there. I think i understand the suggestion now from Dave/Herbert to orphan those skbs... cheers, jamal - 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
