Re: Network performance degradation from 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.16.20

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
Date: 18 Sep 2006 11:58:21 +0200

> For netdev: I'm more and more thinking we should just avoid the
> problem completely and switch to "true end2end" timestamps. This
> means don't time stamp when a packet is received, but only when it
> is delivered to a socket. The timestamp at receiving is a lie
> anyways because the network hardware can add an arbitary long delay
> before the driver interrupt handler runs. Then the problem above
> would completely disappear.

I don't think this is wise.

People who run tcpdump want "wire" timestamps as close as possible.
Yes, things get delayed with the IRQ path, DMA delays, IRQ
mitigation and whatnot, but it's an order of magnitude worse if
you delay to user read() since that introduces also the delay of
the packet copies to userspace which are significantly larger than
these hardware level delays.  If tcpdump gets swapped out, the
timestamp delay can be on the order of several seconds making it
totally useless.

Andi, you will need to find another solution to this problem :-)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux