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 <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
