netdev - Re: [PATCH] IPROUTE: Modify tc for new PRIO multiqueue behavior

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:	Fri, 04 May 2007 13:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org
Cc:	peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, hadi@...erus.ca, kaber@...sh.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jgarzik@...ox.com, cramerj@...el.com,
	auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com, christopher.leech@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IPROUTE: Modify tc for new PRIO multiqueue behavior

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 13:01:10 -0700

> Just because they want to standardize, and put it in hardware doesn't
> mean it is a good idea and Linux needs to support it!
> 
> Why is it better for hardware to make the "next packet to send" decision?
> For wired ethernet, I can't see how adding the complexity of fixed number
> of small queues is a gain. Better to just do the priority decision in software
> and then queue it to the hardware. This seems like the old Token Ring
> and MAP/TOP style crap crammed on top of Ethernet.

I suspect perhaps the real impetus behind this facility is not being
disclosed.

It certainly is not going to be faster to do this in hardware.

I myself don't see why in the world one would want to do this in
hardware either.  Software can do the selection fast enough and with
tons more flexibility.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html