Messages in this thread | | | From | kuznet@ms2 ... | Subject | Re: softirq in pre3 and all linux ports | Date | Wed, 20 Jun 2001 22:06:13 +0400 (MSK DST) |
| |
Hello!
> > Andrea Arcangeli writes: > > > I don't have gigabit ethernet so I cannot flood my boxes to death. > > > But I think it's real, and a softirq marking itself runnable again is > > > another case to handle without live lockups or starvation.
Andrea, you do not need gigabit interfaces to check this. 100Mbit ones are enough and even better, because they do not mitigate as rule and consume more resources. 8) Actually, you may laugh, but one 10Mbit(!) interface is enough in some curcumstances, namely when stack does more work than usually: sniffing, connection tracking in presence of fragments, syn flooding etc.
Actually, now I do not understand why TUX still works with Ingo's patch. As soon as bulk work is made in thread context, it should die pretty fastly doing no progress. :-)
> > I think (still) that you're just moving the problem around and > > not actually changing anything.
Well, ksoftirqd is not sort of placebo yet. :-)
OK. Let's forget about infinite thread latency and live lock problems introduced by Ingo's patch. Eventually, BSD does exactly the same thing for ages and nobody but security paranoics cried about this too much. We are just fully bsd compliant now. 8)
Let's look at different angle: f.e. with Ingo's patch, as soon as one cpu processes some global BH, all the rest of cpus will spin waiting for global bh release. Is this good? I am afraid this is not quite good.
Alexey
- 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/
| |