netdev - Re: [Pv-drivers] rps and pvdrivers

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:	Sat, 4 Sep 2010 11:27:39 -0400
From:	Chetan Loke <chetanloke@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Bhavesh Davda <bhavesh@...are.com>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"pv-drivers@...are.com" <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
	"therbert@...gle.com" <therbert@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] rps and pvdrivers

On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Nope. Because if each packet goes through two cpus instead of one before
> being queued to socket queue, you pay overhead and memory trafic between
> these cpus.

But if an interface is set in promisc-mode then why split the flows?
And if rps is not enabled(which by default it isn't) then everything
should just work as before.


>
> This is the reason why RPS is not automatically switched on. It might be
> slower on some workloads.
>
I'm now generating multi-flow traffic pattern and still the same.


Chetan
--
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