On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 10:26:25AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:07:30 am Simon Horman wrote: > > [snip] > > I've been away, but what concerns me is that socket buffer limits are > bypassed in various configurations, due to skb cloning. We should probably > drop such limits altogether, or fix them to be consistent. Further, it looks like when the limits are not bypassed, they easily result in deadlocks. For example, with multiple tun devices attached to a single bridge in host, if a number of these have their queues blocked, others will reach the socket buffer limit and traffic on the bridge will get blocked altogether. It might be better to drop the limits altogether unless we can fix them. Happily, as the limits are off by default, doing so does not require kernel changes. > Simple fix is as someone suggested here, to attach the clone. That might > seriously reduce your sk limit, though. I haven't thought about it hard, > but might it make sense to move ownership into skb_shared_info; ie. the > data, rather than the skb head? > > Cheers, > Rusty. tracking data ownership might benefit others such as various zero-copy strategies. It might need to be done per-page, though, not per-skb. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
