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 17:01:44 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	hadi@...erus.ca
Cc:	rick.jones2@...com, 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 19:54:47 -0400

> On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:48 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
> >   > RX queues - yes, I can see;  TX queues, it doesnt make sense to put
> > > different rings on different CPUs.
> > 
> > To what extent might that preclude some cachelines bouncing hither and 
> > yon between the CPUs?
> 
> I think the bouncing will exist a lot more with the multi CPUs. But one
> would assume if you go that path, you would also parallelize the stack
> on egress to reduce such an effect. I guess the point i am not seeing is
> the value. The tx, once hitting the NIC is an IO issue not a CPU issue.

Disagred, that single TX lock kills cpu cycles.

If all of the TX queues are independantly programmable of one
another, the single TX lock kills performance.

> off for the night.

Enjoy the game.
-
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