netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] rps: immediate send IPI in process

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:	Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:21:18 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	therbert@...gle.com, xiaosuo@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6] rps: immediate send IPI in
 process_backlog()

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 23:04:58 +0200

> If some skb are queued to our backlog, we are delaying IPI sending at
> the end of net_rx_action(), increasing latencies. This defeats the
> queueing, since we want to quickly dispatch packets to the pool of
> worker cpus, then eventually deeply process our packets.
> 
> It's better to send IPI before processing our packets in upper layers,
> from process_backlog().
> 
> Change the _and_disable_irq suffix to _and_enable_irq(), since we enable
> local irq in net_rps_action(), sorry for the confusion.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>

Eric, irqs are enabled in process_backlog(), so I don't know how legal
it is to invoke net_rps_action_and_irq_enable() from there.

At least, if you are depending upon a later action to pick up the
pieces if the rps_ipi_list test races, you need to update the comment
above net_rps_action_and_irq_enable() since it states that it is
always invoked with IRQs disabled :-)
--
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