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 14:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <>
Subject: Re: parallel networking

From: Jeff Garzik <>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 10:22:28 -0400

> In terms of overall parallelization, both for TX as well as RX, my gut 
> feeling is that we want to move towards an MSI-X, multi-core friendly 
> model where packets are LIKELY to be sent and received by the same set 
> of [cpus | cores | packages | nodes] that the [userland] processes 
> dealing with the data.

The problem is that the packet schedulers want global guarantees
on packet ordering, not flow centric ones.

That is the issue Jamal is concerned about.

The more I think about it, the more inevitable it seems that we really
might need multiple qdiscs, one for each TX queue, to pull this full
parallelization off.

But the semantics of that don't smell so nice either.  If the user
attaches a new qdisc to "ethN", does it go to all the TX queues, or

All of the traffic shaping technology deals with the device as a unary
object.  It doesn't fit to multi-queue at all.
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