linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] networking/fanotify: declare fanotify socket numbers

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: <20090912094727.GC24709@ioremap.net>
Date:	Sat, 12 Sep 2009 13:47:27 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To:	Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Cc:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>, Eric Paris <eparis@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
	alan@...ux.intel.com, hch@...radead.org, balbir@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] networking/fanotify: declare fanotify socket numbers

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:42:54PM +0100, Jamie Lokier (jamie@...reable.org) wrote:
> While skbs and netlink aren't that slow, I suspect they're an order of
> magnitude or two slower than, say, epoll or inotify at passing events
> around.

Skbs are those tiny bits which allow 100 Gbit/s forwarding between multiple
interfaces. But of course it can not be as fast as plain memory copy :)

Having one skb allocation per IO syscall will be challenging but after
all we have this for send/recv calls and achieve high performance
numbers. Idea with merging events in the same skb will be also very non-trivial.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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/