login
Header Space

 
 

Re: [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead of netif_rx()

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <mingo@...>
Cc: <dada1@...>, <netdev@...>, <linux-kernel@...>, <a.p.zijlstra@...>
Date: Monday, March 31, 2008 - 7:02 am

From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:44:03 +0200


Set your loopback MTU to some larger value if this result and
the locking overhead upsets you.

Also, woe be to the application that wants fast local interprocess
communication and doesn't use IPC_SHM, MAP_SHARED, pipes, or AF_UNIX
sockets.  (there's not just one better facility, there are _four_!)

From this perspective, people way-overemphasize loopback performance,
and 999 times out of 1000 they prove their points using synthetic
benchmarks.

And don't give me this garbage about the application wanting to be
generic and therefore use IP sockets for everything.  Either they want
to be generic, or they want the absolute best performance.  Trying
to get an "or" and have both at the same time will result in
ludicrious hacks ending up in the kernel.
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [RFC,PATCH] loopback: calls netif_receive_skb() instead ..., David Miller, (Mon Mar 31, 7:02 am)
Re: poor network loopback performance and scalability, David Miller, (Sun Apr 20, 11:38 pm)
Re: poor network loopback performance and scalability, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Apr 21, 4:11 am)
Re: poor network loopback performance and scalability, David Miller, (Mon Apr 21, 4:16 am)
Re: poor network loopback performance and scalability, David Miller, (Mon Apr 21, 6:22 am)
speck-geostationary