On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 12:40:39PM +0100, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 12:06:52PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 09:19:45AM +0100, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 09:28:34PM +0300, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > > Resync should be an exception and not the rule IMO.
> > > >
> > > > If in your system simultaneous UP of 100 interfaces is not an
> > > > exception. 8)
> > > Forget about interfaces :). Suppose I have BGP router with 100.000
> > > prefixes on
> > > one interface. When interface goes UP my router daemon adds all this
> > > prefixes
> > > to the kernel. This will generate burst of netlink messages right?
> > Netlink sendmsg does flow control based on the buffer.
> But if there is another process listening to netlink and it wants to know
> about routing
> table changes. Will kernel stop the process that adds routes to the routing
> table until
> reading process will empty the socket? I hope not.
It does, unless you made the socket non blocking, in which case you would
get an EAGAIN and could wait using poll(2) for new write space.
[that's no different from how normal non-blocking networking works]
This is like TV. I don't like TV.