netdev - Re: [net-next 13/13] ixgbe: use per NUMA node lock for FCoE DDP

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:	Sat, 11 Jun 2011 19:00:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc:	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, vasu.dev@...el.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, gospo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next 13/13] ixgbe: use per NUMA node lock for FCoE DDP

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 07:42:11 +0200

> This patch seems overkill to me, have you tried the more simple way I
> did in commit 79640a4ca6955e3ebdb7038508fa7a0cd7fa5527
> (net: add additional lock to qdisc to increase throughput )
> 
> (remember you must place ->busylock in a separate cache line, to not
> slow down the two cpus that have access to ->lock)
> 
> struct ixgbe_fcoe could probably be more carefuly reordered to lower
> false sharing
> 
> I kindly ask you guys provide actual perf numbers between
> 
> 1) before any patch
> 2) After your multilevel per numanode locks
> 3) A more simple way (my suggestion of adding a single 'busylock')

Jeff, please sort out these issues with Eric and resend your pull
request once things are resolved.

Thanks!
--
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