From: Guillaume T. <gui...@bu...> - 2005-03-01 08:21:43
|
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 19:17 +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On 28 Feb 2005 10:31:33 -0500 > jamal <ha...@cy...> wrote: > > I would bet the benefit you are seeing has to do with batching rather > > than such an optimization flag. Different ballgame. > > I relooked at their code snippet, they dont even have skbs built nor > > even figured out what sock or PID. That work still needs to be done it > > seems in cn_netlink_send(). So probably all they need to do is move the > > check in cn_netlink_send() instead. This is assuming they are not > > scratching their heads with some realted complexities. > [...] > As connector author, I still doubt it worth copying several lines > from netlink_broadcast() before skb allocation in cn_netlink_send(). > Of course it is easy and can be done, but I do not see any profit here. > Atomic allocation is fast, if it succeds, but there are no groups/socket to send, > skb will be freed, if allocation fails, then group check is useless. > > I would prefer Guillaume Thouvenin as fork connector author to test > his current implementation and show that connector's cost is negligible > both with and without userspace listeners. > As far as I remember it is first entry in fork connector's TODO list. I tested without user space listeners and the cost is negligible. I will test with a user space listeners and see the results. I'm going to run the test this week after improving the mechanism that switch on/off the sending of the message. Best regards, Guillaume |