linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Re: Bad network performance over 2Gbps

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0400
From:	Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>
To:	Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
CC:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>, Kok@...r.kernel.org,
	Auke <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Anton Titov <a.titov@...t.bg>,
	"H. Willstrand" <h.willstrand@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Bad network performance over 2Gbps

Bodo Eggert wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote:
>> Bodo Eggert wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote:
> 
>>>> Be it kernel or user space, for consistent benchmark results it needs to
>>>> be
>>>> able to be turned-off without turning the code.  That leaves me in
>>>> agreement
>>>> with Stephen that if it must exist, the user space one would be
>>>> preferable.
>>>> It can be easily terminated with extreme prejudice.
>>>
>>> I agree that having a full-featured userspace balancer daemon with lots of
>>> intelligence will be theoretically better, but if you can have a simple
>>> daemon doing OK on many machines for less than the userspace daemon's
>>> kernel stack, why not?
>> Perhaps my judgement is too colored by benchmark(et)ing, and desires to have
>> repeatable results on things like neperf, but I very much like to know where
>> my interrupts are going and don't like them moving around. That is why I am
>> not particularly fond of either flavor of irq balancing.
>>
>> That being the case, whatever is out there aught to be able to be disabled on
>> a running system without having to roll bits or reboot.
> 
> Adding a "module" parameter to disable it should be cheap, isn't it?

Except the irq balancing is system-wide.  Adding per-device exemptions to an 
obsolete feature seems like the wrong way to go.

-- Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/