netdev - Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.

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:	Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:59:43 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, greearb@...delatech.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net, hadi@...erus.ca,
	peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.

Roland Dreier wrote:
>  > > The MAC is still very much centralized in most designs.
>  > > So one way they'll do it is to support assigning N MAC addresses,
>  > > and you configure the input filters of the chip to push packets
>  > > for each MAC to the proper receive queue.
>  > > So the MAC will accept any of those in the N MAC addresses as
>  > > it's own, then you use the filtering facilities to steer
>  > > frames to the correct RX queue.
>  > 
>  > Not quite...  You'll have to deal with multiple Rx filters, not just
>  > the current one-filter-for-all model present in today's NICs.  Pools
>  > of queues will have separate configured characteristics.  The "steer"
>  > portion you mention is a bottleneck that wants to be eliminated.
> 
> I think you're misunderstanding.  These NICs still have only one
> physical port, so sending or receiving real packets onto a physical
> wire is fundamentally serialized.  The steering of packets to receive
> queues is done right after the packets are received from the wire --
> in fact it can be done as soon as the NIC has parsed enough of the
> headers to make a decision, which might be before the full packet has
> even been received.  The steering is no more of a bottleneck than the
> physical link is.

No, you're misreading.  People are putting in independent configurable 
Rx filters because a single Rx filter setup for all queues was a 
bottleneck.  Not a performance bottleneck but a configuration and 
flexibility limitation that's being removed.

And where shall we put the configuration machinery, to support sub-queues?
Shall we duplicate the existing configuration code for sub-queues?
What will ifconfig/ip usage look like?
How will it differ from configurating full net_devices, if you are 
assigning the same types of parameters?

	Jeff



-
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