Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 04:24:22 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 04:24:22 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:44045 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 04:24:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:34:22 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Simon Kirby Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-net@vger.kernel.org, davem@redhat.com Subject: Re: Longstanding networking / SMP issue? (duplextest) Message-ID: <20030220093422.GA16369@wotan.suse.de> References: <20030219174757.GA5373@netnation.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <20030220092043.GA25527@netnation.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030220092043.GA25527@netnation.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 893 Lines: 21 On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:20:43AM -0800, Simon Kirby wrote: > On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:52:46AM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > That's probably because of the lazy ICMP socket locking used for the > > ICMP socket. When an ICMP is already in process the next ICMP triggered > > from a softirq (e.g. ECHO-REQUEST) is dropped > > (see net/ipv4/icmp_xmit_lock_bh()) > > 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? -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/