[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080920.235727.247411045.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:57:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc: dwalker@...sta.com, arjan@...radead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, steffen.klassert@...unet.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2]: Remote softirq invocation infrastructure.
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:05:45 +0900
> Unfortunately doing this with IPsec is going to be non-trivial
> since we still want to maintain packet ordering inside IPsec
> and you don't get the inner flow information until you decrypt
> the packet.
Steffen has mechanisms by which to deal with this in his patches.
> So if we want to process IPsec packets in parallel it's best to
> implement that from within the crypto API where we can queue the
> result in order to ensure proper ordering.
That's another option, of course. And crypto could use remote
softirqs even for that :-)
> Of course, we need to balance any effort spent on this with the
> likelihood that hardware improvements will soon make this obsolete
> (for IPsec anyway).
True, but old hardware will always exist.
A lot of very reasonable machines out there will benefit from software
RX flow seperation.
--
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