| 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, 04 Dec 2009 00:52:44 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com> CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] llc: use a device based hash table to speed up multicast delivery Octavian Purdila a écrit : > > Yes, that is probably not appropriate for upstream. What would be a good > value? > A small one to begin (say 64). > Since at this point we are using UP ports contention is not really an issue > for us. I've extrapolated this (lock per hash bucket) based on how locking is > done in other places, like UDP. Yes but you know we want to remove those locks per UDP hash bucket, since we dont really need them anymore. ;) If you remember, we had in the past one rwlock for the whole UDP table. Then this was converted to one spinlock per hash slot (128 slots) + RCU lookups for unicast RX Then we dynamically sized udp table at boot (up to 65536 slots) multicast optimization (holding lock for small duration + double hashing) bind optimization (thanks to double hashing) To be done : 1) multicast RX can be done without taking any lock, and RCU lookups 2) zap all locks and use one lock, or a small array of hashed spinlocks -- 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