linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Re: Bad network performance over 2Gbps

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: <alpine.LSU.0.999.0804212306330.15107@be1.lrz>
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:08:46 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
cc:	Bodo Eggert <7eggert@....de>, Kok@...r.kernel.org,
	Auke <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Anton Titov <a.titov@...t.bg>, Chris Snook <csnook@...hat.com>,
	"H. Willstrand" <h.willstrand@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Bad network performance over 2Gbps

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote:
> Bodo Eggert wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote:

> > > Be it kernel or user space, for consistent benchmark results it needs to
> > > be
> > > able to be turned-off without turning the code.  That leaves me in
> > > agreement
> > > with Stephen that if it must exist, the user space one would be
> > > preferable.
> > > It can be easily terminated with extreme prejudice.
> > 
> > 
> > I agree that having a full-featured userspace balancer daemon with lots of
> > intelligence will be theoretically better, but if you can have a simple
> > daemon doing OK on many machines for less than the userspace daemon's
> > kernel stack, why not?
> 
> Perhaps my judgement is too colored by benchmark(et)ing, and desires to have
> repeatable results on things like neperf, but I very much like to know where
> my interrupts are going and don't like them moving around. That is why I am
> not particularly fond of either flavor of irq balancing.
> 
> That being the case, whatever is out there aught to be able to be disabled on
> a running system without having to roll bits or reboot.

Adding a "module" parameter to disable it should be cheap, isn't it?
-- 
Top 100 things you don't want the sysadmin to say:
34. The network's down, but we're working on it. Come back after diner.
    (Usually said at 2200 the night before thesis deadline... )
--
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/