On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:51:14 +0300 Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:30:22PM +0100, Eric Dumazet (dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > > It should contain rough number of sockets, there is no need to be very > > > precise because of this hueristic. > > > > Denying there is a bug is... well... I dont know what to say. > > > > I wonder why we still use atomic_t all over the kernel. > > It is not a bug. It is not supposed to be precise. At all. > I implemented a simple heuristic on when diferent bind port selection > algorithm should start: roughly when number of opened sockets equals to > some predefined value (sysctl at the moment, but it could be 64k or > anything else), so if that number is loosely maintained and does not > precisely corresponds to the number of sockets, it is not a problem. > > You also saw 'again' lavel which has magic 5 number - it is another > heuristic - since lock is dropped atfer the bind bucket check, and we > selected it, it is possible that non-reuse socket will be added into the > bucket, so we will have to rerun the process again. I limited this to > the 5 attempts only, since it is better than what we have right now (I > never saw more than 2 attempts needed in the tests), when number of > bound sockets does not exceed 64k. > > How is any of this supposed to fix the bug? _______________________________________________ et-mgmt-tools mailing list et-mgmt-tools@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/et-mgmt-tools
