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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:51:10 -0500 From: linas@...tin.ibm.com (Linas Vepstas) To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org> Cc: Jan-Bernd Themann <ossthema@...ibm.com>, Thomas Klein <tklein@...ibm.com>, Marcus@...abs.org, Jan-Bernd Themann <themann@...ibm.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Christoph Raisch <raisch@...ibm.com>, linux-ppc <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>, akepner@....com, Eder <meder@...ibm.com>, Stefan Roscher <stefan.roscher@...ibm.com> Subject: Re: RFC: issues concerning the next NAPI interface On Fri, Aug 24, 2007 at 08:52:03AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > You need hardware support for deferred interrupts. Most devices have it (e1000, sky2, tg3) > and it interacts well with NAPI. It is not a generic thing you want done by the stack, > you want the hardware to hold off interrupts until X packets or Y usecs have expired. Just to be clear, in the previous email I posted on this thread, I described a worst-case network ping-pong test case (send a packet, wait for reply), and found out that a deffered interrupt scheme just damaged the performance of the test case. Since the folks who came up with the test case were adamant, I turned off the defferred interrupts. While defferred interrupts are an "obvious" solution, I decided that they weren't a good solution. (And I have no other solution to offer). --linas - 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