Hello!
> I recall having seen this kind of problems in 2.1/2.2 series,
> possibly a bug-fix was added in late 2.2 to restore earlier
> behaviour in 2.0...
No, it was repaired only in 2.4. Actually, I think 2.0 behaved approximately
in the same way, the source of the bug is deep in linux approach
to memory accounting and 2.0 was not different.
> > 2) If these processes are run on different Linux m/c's with kernel
> > 2.2.xx, the problem doesn't appear.
>
> Quite so.
No, it appears. Only number "32" is different, on ethernet it changes
to ~90 (for size > rx_copy_break) or 1000.
Alexey
|
