| 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: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 03:00:21 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: eric.dumazet@...il.com Cc: jhautbois@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Regression on TX throughput when using bonding From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 11:50:17 +0200 > On Thu, 2012-06-14 at 11:22 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> So you are saying that if you make skb_orphan_try() doing nothing, it >> solves your problem ? > > It probably does, if your application does an UDP flood, trying to send > more than the link bandwidth. I guess only benchmarks workloads ever try > to do that. Eric, I just want to point out that back when this early orphaning idea were being proposed I warned about this, and specifically I mentioned that, for datagram sockets, the socket send buffer limits are what provide proper rate control and fairness. It also, therefore, protects the system from one datagram spammer being able to essentially take over the network interface and blocking out all other users. Early orphaning breaks this completely. I guess we decided that moving an atomic operation earlier is worth all of this? Now we are so addicted to the increased performance from early orphaning that I fear we'll never be allowed back into that sane state of affairs ever again. -- 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