Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:35:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:35:34 -0400 Received: from pc2-cwma1-5-cust12.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.121.12]:35574 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 25 Aug 2002 10:35:34 -0400 Subject: Re: packet re-ordering on SMP machines. From: Alan Cox To: Ben Greear Cc: linux-kernel In-Reply-To: <3D6884BC.5090004@candelatech.com> References: <3D6884BC.5090004@candelatech.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-6) Date: 25 Aug 2002 15:41:13 +0100 Message-Id: <1030286473.16651.7.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1111 Lines: 27 On Sun, 2002-08-25 at 08:18, Ben Greear wrote: > By re-ordered, I mean that a method called from process_backlog in dev.c > is being handed packets in a different order than they are being poked into > the driver with hard_start_xmit on the other interface. If each CPU can be running the > process_backlog, then I can see how this could be happening. > > > 1) Is this expected behaviour? Yes > 2) Is there any standard (ie configurable) way to enforce strict ordering on an > SMP system? No > 3) If answer to 2 is no, would you all be interested in a patch that > did allow strict ordering (if indeed I can figure out how to write one)? You should never need it. Ethernet, hubs, switches, routers, internet backbones etc will all cause packet re-ordering. You should also expect the percentage of re-ordered frames on the net to rise and rise. - 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/