netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/3]: tg3: Manage TX backlog in-driver.

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, 20 Jun 2008 12:04:22 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	billfink@...dspring.com
Cc:	krkumar2@...ibm.com, mchan@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	vinay@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3]: tg3: Manage TX backlog in-driver.

From: Bill Fink <billfink@...dspring.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:52:33 -0400

> I have a general question about this new tx queueing model, which
> I haven't seen discussed to this point.
> 
> Although hopefully not frequent events, if the tx queue is kept in
> the driver rather than the network midlayer, what are the ramifications
> of a routing change which requires changing the output to a new interface,
> considering for example that on our 10-GigE interfaces we typically set
> txqueuelen to 10000.

All of the packets would have been in the existing mid-layer generic
backlog anyways, way past the routing decisions.  Nothing about
behavior in this area would be changing.

> Similarly, what are the ramifications of such a change to the bonding
> driver (either in a load balancing or active/backup scenario) when one
> of the interfaces fails (again hopefully a rare event).

Since the bonding driver acts like a pass-thru, and because of the
above, I expect no real ramifications in this area as well.
--
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