linux-kernel - Re: High contention on the sk_buff

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]

Date:	Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:50:58 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	dada1@...mosbay.com, vernux@...ibm.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 01:37:49AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:32:39 +0100
> 
> > I dont understand, doesnt it defeat the ticket spinlock thing and fairness ?
> > 
> > Thread doing __qdisc_run() already owns the __QDISC_STATE_RUNNING bit.
> 
> Right.
> 
> Remember, the way this is designed is that if there is a busy
> cpu taking packets out of the queue and putting them into the
> device then other cpus will simply add to the queue and immediately
> return.

But this "busy cpu" can't take packets out of the queue when it's
waiting on the contended spinlock. Anyway, it's only for testing,
and I didn't say it has to be right.

Jarek P.
--
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/