lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [1/1] connector/CBUS: new messaging subsystem. Revision number next.
On 4/26/05, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:06:36 -0500
> Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 4/26/05, Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 13:42:10 -0500
> > > Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Yes, that woudl work, although I would urge you to implement a message
> > > > queue for callbacks (probably limit it to 1000 messages or so) to
> > > > allow bursting.
> > >
> > > It already exist, btw, but not exactly in that way -
> > > we have skb queue, which can not be filled from userspace
> > > if pressure is so strong so work queue can not be scheduled.
> > > It is of course different and is influenced by other things
> > > but it handles bursts quite well - it was tested on both
> > > SMP and UP machines with continuous flows of forks with
> > > shape addon of new running tasks [both fith fork bomb and not],
> > > so I think it can be called real bursty test.
> > >
> >
> > Ok, hear me out and tell me where I am wrong:
> >
> > By default a socket can receive at least 128 skbs with 258-byte
> > payload, correct? That means that user of cn_netlink_send, if started
> > "fresh", 128 average - size connector messages. If sender does not
> > want to wait for anything (unlike your fork tests that do schedule)
> > that means that 127 of those 128 messages will be dropped, although
> > netlink would deliver them in time just fine.
> >
> > What am I missing?
>
> Concider netlink_broadcast - it delivers skb to the kernel
> listener directly to the input callback - no queueing actually,

Right, no queueing for in-kernel...

But then we have the following: netlink will drop messages sent to
in-kernel socket ony if it can not copy skb - which is i'd say a very
rare scenario. Connector, on the other hand, is guaranteed to drop all
but the very first message sent between 2 schedules. That makes
connector several orders of magnitude less reliable than bare netlink
protocol. And you don't see it with your fork tests because you do
schedule when you fork.

--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-04-26 22:07    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans