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: <466D3B4D.7080905@trash.net>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2007 14:08:45 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, hadi@...erus.ca,
	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.

Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P wrote:
>>>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().

I guess there were a few more reasons why people (at least me) didn't
like it. IIRC It didn't include any sch_api locking changes, to it
was completely broken wrt. concurrent configuration changes (easy
fixable though). Additionally it assumed that classification was
deterministic and two classify calls would return the same result,
which is not necessarily true and might have resulted in locking
the wrong queue, and it didn't deal with TC actions doing stuff
to a packet during the first classification.
-
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