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: <1181178481.4064.121.camel@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 06 Jun 2007 21:08:01 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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.

On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:53 -0700, David Miller wrote:

> There are of course other uses for multiple TX queues, and in
> particular my finer-grained locking example.
>
> I'm still amazed the TX locking issue wasn't clear to you,
> too nervous about tonight's game? :)

It's too depressing - so i came back here for a break ;->
I cant even stand Don Cherry today.

As a side note: You will have to do a lot of surgery to the current code
to make tx run on multi CPUs. It needs some experimenting to get right.
And i am begining to like Herberts changes ;->
I am not against multi-rings; iam just suggesting an alternative
approach which is less disruptive.

In regards to the tx lock - my thinking is resolving that via tx
batching. You amortize the lock over multiple packets. There may be
value in fine grained locking - i need to think about it. A small
extension to the batching patches will provide the change i am
proposing.

cheers,
jamal

-
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