linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 08/15] net: softnet

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: <20240614120407.3eb2ac80@rorschach.local.home>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:04:07 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Eric Dumazet 
 <edumazet@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Daniel
 Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng
 <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Frederic
 Weisbecker <frederic@...nel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jakub
 Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas
 Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Will
 Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Ben Segall <bsegall@...gle.com>, Daniel Bristot
 de Oliveira <bristot@...hat.com>, Dietmar Eggemann
 <dietmar.eggemann@....com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman
 <mgorman@...e.de>, Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>, Vincent
 Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 net-next 08/15] net: softnet_data: Make
 xmit.recursion per task.

On Fri, 14 Jun 2024 16:08:42 +0200
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com> wrote:

> > Is this what we want or not?  
> 
> I personally think (fear mostly) there is still the potential for some
> (performance) regression. I think it would be safer to introduce this
> change under a compiler conditional and eventually follow-up with a
> patch making the code generic.
> 
> Should such later change prove to be problematic, we could revert it
> without impacting the series as a whole. 

That makes sense to me.

-- Steve