Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:09:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:09:16 -0500 Received: from tmr-02.dsl.thebiz.net ([216.238.38.204]:17160 "EHLO gatekeeper.tmr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:09:13 -0500 Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:15:49 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Davidsen To: Andi Kleen cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-net@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Longstanding networking / SMP issue? (duplextest) In-Reply-To: <20030220093422.GA16369@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1175 Lines: 29 On Thu, 20 Feb 2003, Andi Kleen wrote: > 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? Software is not a zero sum exercise. Therefore "fast" and "correct" are not mutually exclusive. -- bill davidsen CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - 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/