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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20070607090840.346f6a09@localhost.localdomain> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 09:08:40 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: hadi@...erus.ca, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org, jeff@...zik.org, auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support. On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 16:56:02 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > From: jamal <hadi@...erus.ca> > Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 19:35:46 -0400 > > > There is no potential for parallelizing on transmit that i can think of. > > Dave, please explain it slowly so i can understand it. > > > > There is huge potential for parallelizing on receive. But i am certainly > > missing the value in the transmit. > > I gave an example in another response, you have N processes > queueing up data for TCP or UDP or whatever in parallel on > different cpus, all going out the same 10gbit device. > > All of them enter into ->hard_start_xmit(), and thus all of them try > to take the same netdev->tx_lock > > If they have multiple TX queues, independantly programmable, that > single lock is stupid. > > We could use per-queue TX locks for such hardware, but we can't > support that currently. There could be bad packet reordering with this (like some SMP routers used to do). -- Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> - 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists