netdev - Re: [RFC] New driver API to speed up small packets xmits

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: <OFA0B8100C.1A34288C-ON652572D8.002808B3-652572D8.002945CB@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Fri, 11 May 2007 13:00:48 +0530
From:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To:	Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] New driver API to speed up small packets xmits

Hi Roland,

Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com> wrote on 05/11/2007 01:51:50 AM:

> This is pretty interesting to me for IP-over-InfiniBand, for a couple
> of reasons.  First of all, I can push multiple send requests to the
> underlying adapter in one go, which saves taking and dropping the same
> lock and also probably allows fewer MMIO writes for doorbells.
>
> However the second reason this is useful is actually more
> interesting.  Right now we request a send completion interrupt for
> every packet we send because most current IB adapters don't really
> have very good interrupt mitigation features.  If we don't signal a
> send completion for every packet, then we might run into a situation
> where we don't get a completion for the last packet that gets sent and
> end up stalling the interface because the stack never gives us another
> packet to send.  However, if I have a whole queue of packets passed to
> my xmit routine, then I only have to request a completion for the last
> packet in the list, which could potentially cut down on interrupts and
> completion processing a lot.

Sounds a good idea. I had a question on error handling. What happens if
the driver asynchronously returns an error for this WR (single WR
containing multiple skbs) ? Does it mean all the skbs failed to be sent ?
Requeuing all of them is a bad idea since it leads to infinitely doing the
same thing, so should every skb be free'd ? Isn't that harsh (if first skb
is bad and others are fine) and how do we avoid that ? Infact we don't
know which skb was transmitted and which failed. If we requeue skbs,
there will also be out-of-order skbs as the callback is asynchronous.

Thanks,

- KK

-
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