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]

Message-ID: <D5C1322C3E673F459512FB59E0DDC32902FC675E@orsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 7 Jun 2007 09:59:14 -0700
From:	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
To:	"Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	<hadi@...erus.ca>, <kaber@...sh.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<jeff@...zik.org>, "Kok, Auke-jan H" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.

> > 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).

My original multiqueue patches I submitted actually had a per-queue Tx
lock, but it was removed since the asymmetry in the stack for locking
was something people didn't like.  Locking a queue for ->enqueue(),
unlocking, then locking for ->dequeue(), unlocking, was something people
didn't like very much.  Also knowing what queue to lock on ->enqueue()
was where the original ->map_queue() idea came from, since we wanted to
lock before calling ->enqueue().

-PJ
-
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