linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Request for inclusion: tcp memory buffers

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: <20111013.160854.1765661520007592071.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:08:54 -0400 (EDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	glommer@...allels.com
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
	ebiederm@...ssion.com, paul@...lmenage.org, gthelen@...gle.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, kirill@...temov.name,
	avagin@...allels.com, devel@...nvz.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Request for inclusion: tcp memory buffers

From: Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 00:05:58 +0400

> On 10/14/2011 12:00 AM, David Miller wrote:
>> That imposes a new non-trivial cost, in fast paths, even when people
>> do not use your feature.
> Well, there is a cost, but all past submissions included round trip
> benchmarks.
> In none of them I could see any significant slowdown.

Did you try millions of sockets doing all kinds of different accesses?

Did you check the nanosecond latency of operations over loopback so
that the real cost of you change can be isolated and thus measured
properly?
--
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/