netdev - RE: [PATCH net-next] mlx4: use dev_kfree_skb() instead of dev_kfree_skb

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:	Thu, 20 Sep 2012 07:03:56 +0000
From:	Yevgeny Petrilin <yevgenyp@...lanox.com>
To:	Ying Cai <ycai@...gle.com>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Or Gerlitz" <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next] mlx4: use dev_kfree_skb() instead of
 dev_kfree_skb_any()

Hi Ying,
 
> It seems all the TxQs are sharing the same interrupt for Tx
> completions. Will it be better to have separate interrupt per
> num_tx_rings_p_up (8) queues? E.g. for a 16 core system, with 16 * 8
> Tx queues, to have 16 interrupts for Tx completions of those 128 Tx
> queues?

Actually not all TxQs share same interrupt vector.
In commit 76532d0c we assigned an interrupt vector for each TX ring.
When the number of Queues is higher than number of interrupt vectors, there are queues that share interrupts
And actually reaching the assignment you specified.

> 
> Also I'm looking at mlx4_en_select_queue(), it is using
> __skb_tx_hash(). Use something to achieve XPS may bring better
> performances.
> 

We are considering this change. 

--
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