| 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, 12 Nov 2013 02:58:06 +0800 From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, bhutchings@...arflare.com, christoph.paasch@...ouvain.be, netdev@...r.kernel.org, hkchu@...gle.com, mwdalton@...gle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next] net: introduce dev_set_forwarding() On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:40:12PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 13:21 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote: > > > My point is that even if you did that GRO with your frag_list > > patch should still be a win because the stack prior to the qdisc > > gets run once instead of two or three times. > > > > OK, lets me repeat again. > > 64KB packet receive/aggregation time is more than 540 us on 1Gbps link. I presume you're still talking about the case where we're CPU- bound on receive. In that case I totally agree that you need to impose a limit on the NAPI/GRO run so that we don't keep doing GRO forever. However, the limit should be based on time and not an arbitrary number such as MAX_SKB_FRAGS. IOW relying on not having a frag_list to provide a bound to GRO is just wrong. Cheers, -- Email: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt -- 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