netdev - Re: [net-next PATCH] dql: add a burst attribute

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, 30 Sep 2014 17:26:51 +0200
From:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>,
	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Daniel Borkmann <dborkman@...hat.com>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
	Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>,
	John Fastabend <john.r.fastabend@...el.com>,
	Dave Taht <dave.taht@...il.com>, toke@...e.dk
Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH] dql: add a burst attribute

Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-30 at 15:46 +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> > Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> > > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > > 
> > > Add a new dql attribute, to control how much packets we are allowed to
> > > burst from qdisc to device.
> > 
> > I understand the motivation for this, but I find it a bit out-of-place
> > to have a 'packet' type counter in bql context?
> > 
> > Would it perhaps make more sense to restrict bulk dequeues by an upper
> > (possibly changeable from userspace) byte counter limit?
> 
> The byte count is already provided : its the BQL limit.
> We already have ways to tune it (limit_min & limit_max)
> We do not think we need something else here.

So you're saying that a bulk dequeue should just grab as many skbs
as possible until no more available or dql_avail exhausted?

The "magic" value was just to be conservative and not induce any
hol blocking, which is also why Jesper reduced it again in the latest
submission.

Then, we might later be able to remove the TSO restriction and switch
to a pure byte-based limit.

(I don't think having a packet-based count makes sense once tso/gso
 skbs can be bulk dequeued).

Sorry for the confusion.
--
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