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: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 16:24:35 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com> Cc: hadi@...erus.ca, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, netem@...ts.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5 v4] net: add old_queue_mapping into skb->cb Le mardi 21 décembre 2010 à 22:03 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit : > However, I don't think change the rx queue mapping is a good idea. > When the skbs returned from ifb enter netif_receive_skb() again, > get_rps_cpu() may warn about the wrong rx queue, and my this patch is > used to solve this problem. Even though the rx queue is legal, a > different rps_cpus settings will be used, and the skbs may be > redirected to different CPUs. Is it expected? > > Do we really want a multi queue ifb at all ? Why not use percpu data and LLTX, like we did for other virtual devices (loopback, tunnels, vlans, ...) I guess most ifb uses need to finaly deliver packets in a monoqueue anyway, optimizing ifb might raise lock contention on this resource. See what we did in commit 79640a4ca6955e3e (net: add additional lock to qdisc to increase throughput) : Adding one spinlock actually helped a lot ;) -- 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