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: <46A443CB.6060200@us.ibm.com>
Date:	Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:59:39 -0700
From:	Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>
To:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...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.

Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> 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).


Is this right to say that the above change is to get this behavior?
   If qdisc_run() is called from dev_queue_xmit() don't use batching.
   If qdisc_run() is called from net_tx_action(), do batching.

Isn't it possible to have multiple skb's in the qdisc queue in the
first case?

If this additional argument is used to indicate if we should do batching
or not, then passing a flag may be much more cleaner than passing the blist.

Thanks
Sridhar

-
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