Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:36:09 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: Add PGM protocol support to the IP stack |
| |
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:20:42AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 19 Mar 2010, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org> writes: > > > > > > I know about the openpgm implementation. Openpbm does this at the user > > > level and requires linking to a library. It is essentially a communication > > > protocol done in user space. It has privilege issues because it has to > > > create PGM packets via a raw socket. > > > > That seems like a poor reason alone to put something into the kernel > > Perhaps you rather need some way to have unpriviledged raw sockets? > > Not the only reason. There are also performance implications. NAKing and > other control messages from user space are a pain and the available > implementations add numerous threads just to control the timing of control > messages and the expiration of data etc. Its difficult to listen to a PGM > port from user space. You have to get all messages for the PGM protocol > and then filter in each process.
Ok that sounds like a good reason to have a kernel protocol. Thanks.
Multicast reliable kernel protocols are somewhat new, I guess one would need to make sure to come up with a clean generic interface for them first.
-Andi
-- ak@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
| |