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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:31:13 +0200 From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC] net/core/dst.c : Should'nt dst_run_gc() be more scalable and friendly ? On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 16:15:22 +0800 Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 10:10:30AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > Will a workqueue react the same in case of a DDOS situation, > > where softirq could use all CPU cycles to handle incoming > > packets and feed the GC list, and GC would never > > have a chance to scan and free some items ? > > Well when that happens the softirqs will be deferred to > ksoftirqd which should share the CPU fairly with the > workqueue. Thats nice :) I'll code a workqueue based thing in about 10 days after my hollidays, and perform DOS tests as well. Thanks for the feedback. > > > About chunk processing, I did it on purpose, to not throw away > > all CPU cache. Goal is to process entries, but not all of them > > in a row, especially if we find many yet referenced entries > > (and thus not candidates to freeing) > > I agree that chunks are desirable for a timer since you'd > be hogging the CPU otherwise. However, if you went to a > workqueue then it's less of a concern and would simplify > things. In particular, you won't have to pick a good > chunk size :) - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists