On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:24:38PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
> Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:34:22 +0100
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:20:43AM -0800, Simon Kirby wrote:
> > Hmm...and this is considered desired behavior? It seems like an odd way
> > of handling packets intended to test latency and reliability. :)
>
> IP is best-effort. Dropping packets in odd cases to make locking simpler
> is not unreasonable. Would you prefer an slower kernel?
>
> True.
>
> But this is a quality of implementation issue and I doubt the kernel
> would be slower if we fixed this silly behavior.
>
> Frankly, the locking is due to lazyness, rather than a specific design
> decision. So let's fix it.
For icmp_xmit_lock it can be only done in a limited fashion - you are
always restricted by the buffer size of the ICMP socket. Also I don't
know how to lock the socket from BH context nicely - the only simple way
probably is the trick from the retransmit timer to just try again
in a jiffie, but could have nasty queueing up under high load.
Fixing the error drop behaviour of TCP will be somewhat nasty too.
In both cases you'll need a retry timer (unreliable) or an dedicated ICMP
backlog (complicated)
-Andi
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:32 EST