| 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: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 07:09:05 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: ak@...e.de Cc: master@...torb.msk.ru, hawk@...u.dk, harry@...os.washington.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: Network performance degradation from 2.6.11.12 to 2.6.16.20 From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> Date: 18 Sep 2006 11:58:21 +0200 > For netdev: I'm more and more thinking we should just avoid the > problem completely and switch to "true end2end" timestamps. This > means don't time stamp when a packet is received, but only when it > is delivered to a socket. The timestamp at receiving is a lie > anyways because the network hardware can add an arbitary long delay > before the driver interrupt handler runs. Then the problem above > would completely disappear. I don't think this is wise. People who run tcpdump want "wire" timestamps as close as possible. Yes, things get delayed with the IRQ path, DMA delays, IRQ mitigation and whatnot, but it's an order of magnitude worse if you delay to user read() since that introduces also the delay of the packet copies to userspace which are significantly larger than these hardware level delays. If tcpdump gets swapped out, the timestamp delay can be on the order of several seconds making it totally useless. Andi, you will need to find another solution to this problem :-) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists