From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268197AbUHaMtA (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:49:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268144AbUHaMrR (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:47:17 -0400 Received: from lax-gate3.raytheon.com ([199.46.200.232]:21359 "EHLO lax-gate3.raytheon.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268326AbUHaMqi (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:46:38 -0400 Subject: Re: [patch] voluntary-preempt-2.6.9-rc1-bk4-Q5 To: Ingo Molnar Cc: "K.R. Foley" , linux-kernel , Felipe Alfaro Solana , Daniel Schmitt , Lee Revell X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 5.0.8 June 18, 2001 Message-ID: From: Mark_H_Johnson@raytheon.com Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 07:46:08 -0500 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on RTSHOU-DS01/RTS/Raytheon/US(Release 6.5.2|June 01, 2004) at 08/31/2004 07:46:12 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SPAM: 0.00 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >in theory the patch is more or less equivalent to setting >netdev_max_backlog to a value of 1 - could you try that setting too? >(with the patch unapplied.) Ugh. That setting is VERY BAD. Just a quick test without doing anything complex... # echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/core/netdev_max_backlog # ping dws7 PING dws7 (192.52.215.17) 56(84) bytes of data. [so the DNS lookup worked] From dws77... (192.52.215.87) icmp_seq=0 Destination Host Unreachable From dws77... (192.52.215.87) icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From dws77... (192.52.215.87) icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable ... [NOTE - these are plugged into the same 10/100 Ethernet switch] # echo 8 > /proc/sys/net/core/netdev_max_backlog # ping dws7 PING dws7 (192.52.215.17) 56(84) bytes of data. [so the DNS lookup worked] From dws77... (192.52.215.87) icmp_seq=0 ttl=64 time=2210 ms From dws77... (192.52.215.87) icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1210 ms From dws77... (192.52.215.87) icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=210 ms From dws77... (192.52.215.87) icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.355 ms From dws77... (192.52.215.87) icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.397 ms ... I tried again with 2, 3, and 4. Two appears to be "way too small" with a ping of 1000 ms and nominal values of 0.800 ms. Three does not appear to be good either with nominal values of 0.500 ms. Four has similar results to eight (8). --Mark H Johnson