Hi Eric,

FYI: with your patch applied and lockdep enabled, I see:
[   39.114628] ================================================
[   39.121964] [ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
[   39.127704] ------------------------------------------------
[   39.133461] msgtest/5242 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
[   39.140132] 1 lock held by msgtest/5242:
[   39.144287]  #0:  (clock-AF_INET){-.-?}, at: [<ffffffff8041f5b9>] sock_def_readable+0x19/0xb0

I can't reproduced this with the mcasttest program yet, it
was with an internal test program which does some userspace
processing on the messages. I'll let you know if I find a way
to reproduce it with a simple program I can share.

 > Well, smp_affinity could help in my opininon if you dedicate
 > one cpu for the NIC, and others for user apps, if the average
 > work done per packet is large. If load is light, its better
 > to use the same cpu to perform all the work, since no expensive
 > bus trafic is needed between cpu to exchange memory lines.

I tried this setup as well: an 8-core box with 4 userspace
processes, each affined to an individual CPU1-4. The IRQ was on
CPU0. On most kernels, this setup loses fewer packets than the default
affinity (though they both lose some). With your patch enabled, the
default affinity loses 0 packets, and this setup loses some.

Thanks,
Brian Bloniarz

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html