netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2 net-next] tcp: sk_add_backlog() is too agressive for TCP

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, 24 Apr 2012 10:25:39 -0500 (CDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	therbert@...gle.com, ncardwell@...gle.com, maze@...gle.com,
	ycheng@...gle.com, ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2 net-next] tcp: sk_add_backlog() is too agressive for
 TCP

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012, Rick Jones wrote:

> Is it at all possible to have the copies happen without the connection being
> locked?  If indeed it is possible to be held-off with the connection locked
> for the better part of 3/4 of a millisecond, just what will that do to 40 or
> 100 GbE?  If you've been seeing queues of 300 ACKs at 10 GbE that would be
> 3000 at 100 GbE, and assuming those are all in a 2048 byte buffer thats 6MB
> just of ACKs.  I suppose 100GbE does mean non-trivial quantities of buffering
> anyway but that does still seem rather high.

At some point people will need to realize that it is not business as usual
if one tries to use the current network porotocols at speeds above 1G.

There is a reason for high speed networks implementing new protocols like
RDMA techniques and lossless characteristics of a network.

--
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