netdev - Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.

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:	Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:52:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	hadi@...erus.ca
Cc:	kaber@...sh.net, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.

From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:32:46 -0400

> On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 15:35 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > With the above for transmit, and having N "struct napi_struct"
> > instances for MSI-X directed RX queues, we'll have no problem keeping
> > a 10gbit (or even faster) port completely full with lots of cpu to
> > spare on multi-core boxes.
> > 
> 
> RX queues - yes, I can see;  TX queues, it doesnt make sense to put
> different rings on different CPUs.

For the locking is makes a ton of sense.

If you have sendmsg() calls going on N cpus, would you rather
they:

1) All queue up to the single netdev->tx_lock

or

2) All take local per-hw-queue locks

to transmit the data they are sending?

I thought this was obvious... guess not :-)
-
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