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, 29 Nov 2011 09:43:54 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com> Cc: John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/10] bql: Byte Queue Limits Le mardi 29 novembre 2011 à 09:37 +0100, Dave Taht a écrit : > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:23 AM, John Fastabend > <john.r.fastabend@...el.com> wrote: > > > > I wonder if we should consider enabling TSO/GSO per queue or per traffic > > class on devices that support this. At least in devices that support > > multiple traffic classes it seems to be a common usage case to put bulk > > storage traffic (iSCSI) on a traffic class and low latency traffic on a > > separate traffic class, VoIP for example. > > > VOIP is a drop in the bucket. > > Turning TSO off on TCP exiting the datacenter (or more specifically), > destined anywhere there is potential tx/rx bandwidth disparity > would be goooooood. > If your cpu is fast enough (and they are most of the time), this makes no difference at all. Instead of consuming 3% of cpu with TSO, you'll consume 10% or 15% and no difference seen on the wire. Really, if you want to avoid bursts, TSO has litle to do with them. -- 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