netdev - Re: Socket buffer sizes with autotuning

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:36:43 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	therbert@...gle.com
Cc:	andi@...stfloor.org, johnwheffner@...il.com, rick.jones2@...com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Socket buffer sizes with autotuning

From: "Tom Herbert" <therbert@...gle.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:34:50 -0700

> Queuing in the host as opposed to in the TX NIC might be beneficial to make
> work conserving queuing disciplines more effective, since once a packet is
> queued in the NIC the host can no longer perform any more scheduling on
> it.    In fact, we have been working on a mechanism to dynamically limit
> queuing in the NIC (by number of bytes), so that more packets will be queued
> in host.  This seems to give better results with some of the qdiscs (I can
> post a patch if there's interest in this).

This work is interesting, but doesn't it make more sense to limit by
number of packets instead of bytes?

No intermediate node that I know of drops bytes, they drop packets
instead :-)
--
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