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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 10 Nov 2014 05:23:14 +0000
From:	Hayes Wang <>
To:	Francois Romieu <>
CC:	David Miller <>,
	"" <>,
	nic_swsd <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] r8152: cleartheflagofSCHEDULE_TASKLETintasklet

 Francois Romieu [] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 6:12 AM
> The performance explanation leaves me a bit unconvinced. Without any
> figure one could simply go for the always locked clear_bit because of:
> 1. the "I'm racy" message that the open-coded test + set sends
> 2. the extra work needed to avoid 1 (comment, explain, ...).

Thanks. I would modify this patch with clear_bit only.

> The extra time could thus be used to see what happens when napi is
> shoehorned in this tasklet machinery. I'd naively expect it to be
> relevant for efficiency.

I thought about NAPI, but I gave up. The reasons are
1. I don't sure if it would run when autosuspending.
2. There is no hw interrupt for USB device. And I have
   no idea about how to check if the USB transfer is
   completed by polling.
3. I have to control the rx packets numbers in poll().
   However, I couldn't control the packets number for
   each bulk-in transfer. I have to do extra works to
   deal with the rx flow.
4. I don't find much different between tasklet and NAPI.

Best Regards,
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists