On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:15:22 +0800 Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 10:10:30AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > Will a workqueue react the same in case of a DDOS situation, > > where softirq could use all CPU cycles to handle incoming > > packets and feed the GC list, and GC would never > > have a chance to scan and free some items ? > > Well when that happens the softirqs will be deferred to > ksoftirqd which should share the CPU fairly with the > workqueue. Thats nice :) I'll code a workqueue based thing in about 10 days after my hollidays, and perform DOS tests as well. Thanks for the feedback. > > > About chunk processing, I did it on purpose, to not throw away > > all CPU cache. Goal is to process entries, but not all of them > > in a row, especially if we find many yet referenced entries > > (and thus not candidates to freeing) > > I agree that chunks are desirable for a timer since you'd > be hogging the CPU otherwise. However, if you went to a > workqueue then it's less of a concern and would simplify > things. In particular, you won't have to pick a good > chunk size :) - 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
