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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 08 Oct 2007 14:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] [NET_SCHED] explict hold dev tx lock

From: jamal <>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:34:50 -0400

> The brain-block i am having is the parallelization aspect of it.
> Whatever scheme it is - it needs to ensure the scheduler works as
> expected. For example, if it was a strict prio scheduler i would expect
> that whatever goes out is always high priority first and never ever
> allow a low prio packet out at any time theres something high prio
> needing to go out. If i have the two priorities running on two cpus,
> then i cant guarantee that effect.
> IOW, i see the scheduler/qdisc level as not being split across parallel
> cpus. Do i make any sense?

Picture it like N tubes you stick packets into, and the tubes are
processed using DRR.

So packets within a tube won't be reordered, but reordering amongst
tubes is definitely possible.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists