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  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]
Date:	Mon, 11 Jun 2007 16:38:43 +0200
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	"Cohen, Guy" <guy.cohen@...el.com>
CC:	hadi@...erus.ca,
	"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.

Cohen, Guy wrote:
> 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.


Thats exactly what I'm saying. And its not possible with a single
queue state as I tried to explain in my last last.
-
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