linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] Convert the UDP hash lock to RCU

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: <48EA9A59.1090306@acm.org>
Date:	Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:08:09 -0500
From:	Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	dada1@...mosbay.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...tta.com,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Convert the UDP hash lock to RCU

David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:22:31 +0200
>
>   
>> Me wondering what impact this synchronize_rcu() can have on mono-threaded
>> VOIP applications using lot of UDP sockets. What is the maximum delay of
>> this function ?
>>     
>
> The cost is enormous, we really can't use it here.
>
> I have a patch that did top-level socket destruction using RCU,
> and that didn't use synchronize_rcu(), and that killed connection
> rates by up to %20.
>
> I can only imagine what the cost would be if I had to add such a call
> in there.
>
> Really, I can't consider these changes seriously, as-is.
>
>   
Would using SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU be ok, or would that be too expensive?

-corey
--
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/