netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/4] virtio_net: return NETDEV_TX_BUSY instead of queueing an extra skb.

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:	Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:34:17 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Matt Carlson <mcarlson@...adcom.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] virtio_net: return NETDEV_TX_BUSY instead of
	queueing an extra skb.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 11:16:03AM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
>
> I was curious about "queueing it in the driver" part: why is this bad? Do
> you
> anticipate any performance problems, or does it break QoS, or something
> else I
> have missed?

Queueing it in the driver is bad because it is no different than
queueing it at the upper layer, which is what will happen when
you return TX_BUSY.

Because we've ripped out the qdisc requeueing logic (which is
horribly complex and only existed because of TX_BUSY), it means
that higher priority packets cannot preempt a packet that is queued
in this way.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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