netdev - Re: [RFC] New driver API to speed up small packets xmits

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:	Fri, 11 May 2007 14:02:55 +0530
From:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc:	ak@...e.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] New driver API to speed up small packets xmits

Hi Andy,

ak@...e.de wrote on 05/11/2007 02:35:05 PM:

> You don't need that. You can just use the normal next/prev pointers.
> In general it's a good idea to lower lock overhead etc., the VM has
> used similar tricks very successfully in the past.

Does this mean each skb should be for the same connection if next/prev
is used ?

> Another problem is that this setup typically requires the aggregate
> packets to be from the same connection. Otherwise you will only
> safe a short trip into the stack until the linked packet would need
> to be split again to pass to multiple sockets. With that the scheme
> probably helps much less.

I guess you meant this for receives only. On the send side, packets
for different sockets can be linked and sent together, right ?

> Or you could do this only if multiple packets belong to the same
> single connection (basically with a one hit cache); but then it would

But for sends, why does same or different connection matter ? There is
no aggregating of skbs.

Thanks,

- KK

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