netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC]: napi

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]

Date:	Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:05:47 -0700
From:	"Michael Chan" <mchan@...adcom.com>
To:	"David Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
	jgarzik@...ox.com, hadi@...erus.ca, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC]: napi_struct V4

David Miller wrote:

> So that ->poll_controller() can process TX acks by just having
> the TX lock and interrupts disabled.
> 
> Can you think of another way to process TX acks from absolutely
> any execution context whatsoever?  That's what we need and
> preferably in some generic way, and the above is what I came
> up with.

What are we trying to protect against by taking the TX lock before
calling ->poll_controller()?

> 
> To be honest I don't think the TX lock contention will matter, and
> even if there were a small cost, the simplicity of the netpoll
> implementation is worth it given how problematic and hard to debug
> netpoll has been in the past.
> 
>

There is a measurable difference in oprofile.  When passing small
packets, there's a non-trivial difference in throughput.

-
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