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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4708C44B.40405@garzik.org> Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 07:34:35 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ayaz Abdulla <aabdulla@...dia.com>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] forcedeth: several proposed updates for testing Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote: > >> * I feel TX NAPI is a useful tool, because it provides an independent TX >> process control point and system load feedback point. >> Thus I felt this was slightly superior to tasklets. > > /me agrees violently > > btw., when i played with this tunable under -rt: > > enum { > NV_OPTIMIZATION_MODE_THROUGHPUT, > NV_OPTIMIZATION_MODE_CPU > }; > static int optimization_mode = NV_OPTIMIZATION_MODE_THROUGHPUT; > > the MODE_CPU one gave (much) _higher_ bandwidth. The queueing model in > forcedeth seemed to be not that robust and i think a single queueing > model should be adopted instead of this tunable. (which i think just hid > some bug/dependency) But i never got to the bottom of it so it's just > the impression i got. That's interesting. It will be informative to narrow down the variables affected by this. My changes stirred the pot quite a bit :) * 'throughput' mode enables MSI-X, and separate interrupt vectors for RX and TX. so, NVIDIA's MSI-X implementation, our generic MSI-X support, or "Known bugs" (see top of file) may be a factor here. * 'throughput' mode also changes the NIC's timer interrupt frequency * do you recall if you were running in NAPI mode? It defaulted to off in Kconfig, but I turned it on unconditionally. * I think TX NAPI has the potential to make the optimization_mode irrelevant (along with the other changes, most notably the interrupt handling change) * and overall, yes, if we can have a single queueing model / optimization mode I am strongly in favor of that. Testing welcome ;-) Though these patches are raw and "hot off the presses", so unrelated bugs are practically a certainty. And I am worrying about the "Known bugs" note at the top. My gut feeling is that this was, in part, misunderstanding on the part of reverse-engineers, since corrected when NVIDIA started contributing to the driver. Jeff - 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