netdev - Re: [PATCH v4] rfs: Receive Flow Steering

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:32:36 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
CC:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] rfs: Receive Flow Steering

> Even under a hybrid model I think phrasing it as networking leading
> the scheduler here is a little strong.  The scheduler is in both cases
> the most 'informed' place to make these decisions, but I think it
> could benefit from more knowledge.  In the 'virgin' single flow case
> without any steering the network stack is currently able to implicitly
> hint to the scheduler where flows could be most efficiently served due
> to wake-affine balancing behaviors.  This is a natural side-effect of
> wake-ups being sourced by the networking cpus.

Hinting to the scheduler is fine - so long as the final say is the scheduler. 
Presumably it is the thing that knows about the other forces tugging at where to 
run the thread - where its memory is allocated, what other flows are coming to 
it etc.

rick jones
--
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