netdev - Re: [PATCH 20/31]: pkt_sched: Perform bulk of qdisc destruction in RCU.

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:	Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:32:50 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, johannes@...solutions.net,
	linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/31]: pkt_sched: Perform bulk of qdisc destruction in
	RCU.

On Sun, 2008-20-07 at 10:25 -0700, David Miller wrote:

> They tend to implement round-robin or some similar fairness algorithm
> amongst the queues, with zero concern about packet priorities.

pfifo_fast would be a bad choice in that case, but even a pfifo cannot
guarantee proper RR because it would present packets in a FIFO order
(and example the first 10 could go to hardware queue1 and the next to
hardware queue2).

My view: i think you need a software queue per hardware queue.
Maybe even these queues residing in the driver; that way you take care
of congestion and it doesnt matter if the hardware is RR or strict prio
(and you dont need the pfifo or pfifo_fast anymore).
The use case would be something along:
packets comes in, you classify find its for queue1, grab the
per-hardware-queue1 lock, find the hardware queue1 is overloaded and
stash it instead in s/ware queue1. If it wasnt congested, it would go on
hardware queue1.
When hardware queue1 becomes available and netif-woken, you pick first
from s/ware queue1 (and batching could apply cleanly here) and send them
to hardware queue.

> It really is just like a bunch of queues to the phsyical layer,
> fairly shared.

I am suprised prioritization is not an issue. [My understanding of the
intel/cisco datacentre cabal is they serve virtual machines using
virtual wires; i would think in such scenarios youd have some customers
who pay more than others].

> These things are built for parallelization, not prioritization.

Total parallelization happens in the ideal case. If X cpus classify
packets going to X different hardware queueus each CPU grabs only locks
for that hardware queue. In virtualization, where only one customer's
traffic is going to a specific hardware queue, things would work well.
Non-virtualization scenario may result in collision in which two or more
CPUs may contend for the same hardware queue (either transmitting or
netif-waking etc).

cheers,
jamal

--
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