netdev - Re: [PATCH] bnx2x: add support for receive hashing

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:	Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:02:08 -0400
From:	Brian Bloniarz <bmb@...enacr.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	therbert@...gle.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, rick.jones2@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bnx2x: add support for receive hashing

David Miller wrote:
> From: Brian Bloniarz <bmb@...enacr.com>
> Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:37:11 -0400
> 
>> David Miller wrote:
>>> How damn hard is it to add two 16-bit ports to the hash regardless of
>>> protocol?
>>>   
>> Come to think of it, for UDP the hash must ignore
>> the srcport and srcaddr, because a single bound
>> socket is going to wildcard both those fields.
> 
> For load distribution we don't care if the local socket is wildcard
> bounded on source.
> 
> It's going to be fully specified in the packet, and that's enough.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding... won't it distribute the
packet handling load to multiple cores, but then all
those cores will contend trying to deliver those packets
to the single socket?

I was assuming that this'd be a net loss over just doing
all the protocol handling on a single core. I haven't
done any benchmarks yet.
--
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