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: <D0122E209EBF8D4CAB38EC6A8AF244E502AB28BA@hasmsx412.ger.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:30:07 +0300
From:	"Cohen, Guy" <guy.cohen@...el.com>
To:	"Patrick McHardy" <kaber@...sh.net>, <hadi@...erus.ca>
Cc:	"Waskiewicz Jr, Peter P" <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>,
	<davem@...emloft.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.

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> jamal wrote:
> > Sure - but what is wrong with that?
> 
> 
> Nothing, this was just to illustrate why I disagree with the
assumption
> that the packet has hit the wire. On second thought I do agree with
your
> assumption for the single HW queue case, at the point we hand the
packet
> to the HW the packet order is determined and is unchangeable. But this
> is not the case if the hardware includes its own scheduler. The qdisc
> is simply not fully in charge anymore.

For WiFi devices the HW often implements the scheduling, especially when
QoS (WMM/11e/11n) is implemented. There are few traffic queues defined
by the specs and the selection of the next queue to transmit a packet
from, is determined in real time, just when there is a tx opportunity.
This cannot be predicted in advance since it depends on the medium usage
of other stations.

Hence, to make it possible for wireless devices to use the qdisc
mechanism properly, the HW queues should _ALL_ be non-empty at all
times, whenever data is available in the upper layers. Or in other
words, the upper layers should not block a specific queue because of the
usage of any other queue.

> 
> Your basic assumption seems to be that the qdisc is still in charge
> of when packets get sent. This isn't the case if there is another
> scheduler after the qdisc and there is contention in the second
> queue.

Which is often the case in wireless devices - transmission scheduling is
done in HW.
-
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