netdev - Re: [PATCH 02/10] Networking include file changes.

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: <OF46F8CFAE.90A18F30-ON6525731F.0023182A-6525731F.0023B8DF@in.ibm.com>
Date:	Sat, 21 Jul 2007 12:00:10 +0530
From:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
To:	Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>
Cc:	davem@...emloft.net, gaagaan@...il.com,
	general@...ts.openfabrics.org, hadi@...erus.ca,
	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, jagana@...ibm.com, jeff@...zik.org,
	johnpol@....mipt.ru, kaber@...sh.net, kumarkr@...ux.ibm.com,
	mcarlson@...adcom.com, mchan@...adcom.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, rdreier@...co.com,
	rick.jones2@...com, Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se, tgraf@...g.ch,
	xma@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] Networking include file changes.

Hi Sridhar,

Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com> wrote on 07/20/2007 10:55:05 PM:
> > diff -ruNp org/include/net/pkt_sched.h new/include/net/pkt_sched.h
> > --- org/include/net/pkt_sched.h   2007-07-20 07:49:28.000000000 +0530
> > +++ new/include/net/pkt_sched.h   2007-07-20 08:30:22.000000000 +0530
> > @@ -80,13 +80,13 @@ extern struct qdisc_rate_table *qdisc_ge
> >        struct rtattr *tab);
> >  extern void qdisc_put_rtab(struct qdisc_rate_table *tab);
> >
> > -extern void __qdisc_run(struct net_device *dev);
> > +extern void __qdisc_run(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff_head
*blist);
>
> Why do we need this additional 'blist' argument?
> Is this different from dev->skb_blist?

It is the same, but I want to call it mostly with NULL and rarely with the
batch list pointer (so it is related to your other question). My original
code didn't have this and was trying batching in all cases. But in most
xmit's (probably almost all), there will be only one packet in the queue to
send and batching will never happen. When there is a lock contention or if
the queue is stopped, then the next iteration will find >1 packets. But I
still will try no batching for the lock failure case as there be probably
2 packets (one from previous time and 1 from this time, or 3 if two
failures,
etc), and try batching only when queue was stopped from net_tx_action (this
was based on Dave Miller's idea).

Thanks,

- KK

-
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