linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next] net-sysfs: display two backlog queue len separately

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, 13 Mar 2023 10:33:52 -0700
From:   Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To:     Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc:     davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net-sysfs: display two backlog queue len separately

On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 10:16 AM Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com> wrote:

>
> Thanks for the guidance. Scaling is a good way to go really. But I
> just would like to separate these two kinds of limits to watch them
> closely. More often we cannot decide to adjust accurately which one
> should be adjusted. Time squeeze may not be clear and we cannot
> randomly write a larger number into both proc files which may do harm
> to some external customers unless we can show some proof to them.
>
> Maybe I got something wrong. If adding some tracepoints for those
> limits in softnet_data is not elegant, please enlighten me :)
>

I dunno, but it really looks like you are re-discovering things that
we dealt with about 10 years ago.

I wonder why new ways of tracing stuff are needed nowadays, while ~10
years ago nothing
officially put and maintained forever in the kernel was needed.