linux-kernel - Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP

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]

Message-ID: <20061130205428.GA21140@elte.hu>
Date:	Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:54:28 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	johnpol@....mipt.ru, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, wenji@...l.gov,
	akpm@...l.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] - Potential performance bottleneck for Linxu TCP

* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:

> [...] Instead what i'd like to see is more TCP performance (and a 
> nicer over-the-wire behavior - no retransmits for example) /with the 
> same 10% CPU time used/. Are we in rough agreement?

put in another way: i'd like to see the "TCP bytes transferred per CPU 
time spent by the TCP stack" ratio to be maximized in a load-independent 
way (part of which is the sender host too: to not cause unnecessary 
retransmits is important as well). In a high-load scenario this means 
that any measure that purely improves TCP throughput by giving it more 
cycles is not a real improvement. So the focus should be on throttling 
intelligently and without causing extra work on the sender side either - 
not on trying to circumvent throttling measures.

	Ingo
-
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/