netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: use hardware buffer pool to allocate 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:	Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:53:00 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	"Jiafei.Pan@...escale.com" <Jiafei.Pan@...escale.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"jkosina@...e.cz" <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"LeoLi@...escale.com" <LeoLi@...escale.com>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: use hardware buffer pool to allocate skb

On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 11:28 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:

> Yes, I am well aware of this bit.  That is my concern.  You increase the 
> size for truesize, it will cut the amount of queueing in half, and then 
> igb will start seeing drops when it has to deal with bursty traffic and 
> people will start to complain about a performance regression.  That is 
> the bit I want to avoid.

Then, what about addressing the issue for good, instead of working
around it ?

Don't worry, I will work on it.

We also are working on a direct placement in memory for TCP receive
path. (equivalent of sendfile() but for receiver), to avoid the need to 
hold payload in kernel memory (out of order queues)



--
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