From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 8 13:01:48 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13543106566B for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:01:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (glebius.int.ru [81.19.64.117]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF4B8FC14 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:01:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cell.glebius.int.ru (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q18D1klP022747; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:01:46 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.glebius.int.ru (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q18D1kIs022746; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:01:46 +0400 (MSK) (envelope-from glebius@FreeBSD.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.glebius.int.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@FreeBSD.org using -f Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 17:01:46 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: Dmitrij Tejblum Message-ID: <20120208130146.GH13554@FreeBSD.org> References: <201202081050.q18AoBwY042112@freefall.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201202081050.q18AoBwY042112@freefall.freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/161899: [route] ntpd(8): Repeating RTM_MISS packets causing high CPU load for ntpd X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:01:48 -0000 Dmitrij, On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 10:50:11AM +0000, Dmitrij Tejblum wrote: D> I would suggest to remove RTM_MISS messages at all. I believe that there D> is no sofware that actually use it. OTOH, in some cases RTM_MISS D> messages are really disturbing. D> D> E.g., a router without default route (e.g. runnung BGP) will always D> generate some amount of RTM_MISS messages. They have no use, but require D> daemons to parse them, and could result in overflow on routing socket D> queue and, in turn, cause some important routing messages to be dropped. D> D> I have a patch that add a sysctl to turn off RTM_MISS messages, but D> since no one use them, it would be easier to just remove them entirely. Sounds reasonable. A patch that adds a sysctl is definitely a commit candidate. But we can't be sure that no one uses these messages, so we can't remove them entirely. -- Totus tuus, Glebius.