On Fri, 2016-03-25 at 17:08 -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > +/* Must be called under rcu_read_lock().
>
>
> It might be just as easy to do the rcu_read_lock() within the
> function. That way we don't need to require callers to do it now.
>
>
On 03/28/2016 01:01 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Note : file structures got RCU freeing back in 2.6.14, and I do not
think named users ever complained about added cost ;)
Couldn't see the tree for the forest I guess :)
rick
On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 12:11 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> I was under the impression that individual DNS queries were supposed to
> have not only random DNS query IDs but also originate from random UDP
> source ports. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5452 4.5 at least touches
> on the topic but I d
On 03/28/2016 11:55 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 11:44 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
On 03/28/2016 10:00 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
If you mean that a busy DNS resolver spends _most_ of its time doing :
fd = socket()
bind(fd port=0)
< send and receive one frame >
close(fd)
Yes.
On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 11:44 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> On 03/28/2016 10:00 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 09:15 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> >> On 03/25/2016 03:29 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>> UDP sockets are not short lived in the high usage case, so the added
> >>> cost of call_
On 03/28/2016 10:00 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 09:15 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
On 03/25/2016 03:29 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
UDP sockets are not short lived in the high usage case, so the added
cost of call_rcu() should not be a concern.
Even a busy DNS resolver?
If you mean
On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 09:15 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> On 03/25/2016 03:29 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > UDP sockets are not short lived in the high usage case, so the added
> > cost of call_rcu() should not be a concern.
>
> Even a busy DNS resolver?
If you mean that a busy DNS resolver spends _mo
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
> On 03/25/2016 03:29 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> UDP sockets are not short lived in the high usage case, so the added
>> cost of call_rcu() should not be a concern.
>
>
> Even a busy DNS resolver?
>
Should use connectionless UDP sockets.
> ric
On 03/25/2016 03:29 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
UDP sockets are not short lived in the high usage case, so the added
cost of call_rcu() should not be a concern.
Even a busy DNS resolver?
rick jones
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 03:29:24PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Tom Herbert would like to avoid touching UDP socket refcnt for encapsulated
> traffic. For this to happen, we need to use normal RCU rules, with a grace
> period before freeing a socket. UDP sockets are not short lived in the
> high us
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Tom Herbert would like to avoid touching UDP socket refcnt for encapsulated
> traffic. For this to happen, we need to use normal RCU rules, with a grace
> period before freeing a socket. UDP sockets are not short lived in the
> high usage case
Tom Herbert would like to avoid touching UDP socket refcnt for encapsulated
traffic. For this to happen, we need to use normal RCU rules, with a grace
period before freeing a socket. UDP sockets are not short lived in the
high usage case, so the added cost of call_rcu() should not be a concern.
Th
12 matches
Mail list logo
