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:	Mon, 17 Sep 2007 17:58:51 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@....mipt.ru>
To:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kaber@...sh.net, dada1@...mosbay.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][NET_SCHED] explict hold dev tx lock

On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 09:03:58AM -0400, jamal (hadi@...erus.ca) wrote:
> > Did I understand you right, that you replaced trylock with lock and
> > thus removed collision handling and got better results?
> 
> Yes, a small one with the 4 CPUs and no irq binding. Note that in the
> test cases i run, the contention for queue lock was high (since all CPUs
> were busy processing traffic). 
> I think as the the number of CPUs go up, this will become more
> prominent. The choice is between contending for queue lock or this lock.
> One lock is contended by max of two cpus, the other by N cpus. As N goes
> up, you want to have more mercy on the one that is contended by N cpus.
> Did that make sense?

I think if number of cpus grows and there is no interupt binding, system
will not scale very well anyway, but your description makes sense,
thanks.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
-
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