On Fri, 2007-10-08 at 18:26 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Are we talking about TCP or UDP/RAW?
Both. initially datagram.
I think you gave me something to think about - let me go back to the
drawing table. I like the per socket timer idea; however, if i can solve
from the app (or write my own app w
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 10:30:12AM -0400, jamal wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-10-08 at 16:02 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 09:35:12AM -0400, jamal wrote:
>
> >
> > Affected in what way?
> >
>
> They dont get errors back and they just keep sending even in the
> presence of errors
On Fri, 2007-10-08 at 16:02 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 09:35:12AM -0400, jamal wrote:
>
> Affected in what way?
>
They dont get errors back and they just keep sending even in the
presence of errors - take a look at ip_push_pending_frames. I have been
struggling initiall
On Fri, Aug 10, 2007 at 09:35:12AM -0400, jamal wrote:
>
> It seems there are a lot of dumbass apps (latest i have found is iperf
> when analyzing batching results) out there whose performance is affected
> if they dont set IP_RECVERR.
Affected in what way?
> If you set that option though you
It seems there are a lot of dumbass apps (latest i have found is iperf
when analyzing batching results) out there whose performance is affected
if they dont set IP_RECVERR.
If you set that option though you end up getting all these skbs back
to the app which i see as unnecessary work if i am unin
