| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <200906211446.13665.a1426z@gawab.com> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:46:13 +0300 From: Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com> To: Peter Chacko <peterchacko35@...il.com>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: rick.jones2@...com, radhamohan_ch@...oo.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: [RFD] Pluggable code design (was: can we reuse an skb) Peter Chacko wrote: > What i am considering here is the super optimization of memory buffers > for a multi-layer packet processor, without needing to move packets > into user space. In that case, i am optimizing my custom network stack > with a pre-allocated MTU sized and a few jumbo-sized buffers. And no > interrupts as i do NAPI at all times, as this is a dedicated > appliance. I keep all these buffers in the L1 cache and hence i have > different sets of pools for different cores. I am currently guiding > my engineers to implement the code changes now.. Yes, having a customizable/pluggable network stack sounds very useful. In general, OpenSource projects like Linux don't give much incentive to pluggable designs, because the source, being open, represents a weired form of pluggability. Unfortunately, this "hack it up / code it hard" design style usually inhibits healthy development. A rethink is probably in place... Thanks! -- Al -- 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