netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/4] [NET_SCHED] explict hold dev tx lock

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]

Message-Id: <1191850490.4352.41.camel@localhost>
Date:	Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:34:50 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com, krkumar2@...ibm.com,
	johnpol@....mipt.ru, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, kaber@...sh.net,
	shemminger@...ux-foundation.org, jagana@...ibm.com,
	Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se, rick.jones2@...com, xma@...ibm.com,
	gaagaan@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, rdreier@...co.com,
	mcarlson@...adcom.com, jeff@...zik.org, mchan@...adcom.com,
	general@...ts.openfabrics.org, kumarkr@...ux.ibm.com,
	tgraf@...g.ch, randy.dunlap@...cle.com, sri@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] [NET_SCHED] explict hold dev tx lock

On Sun, 2007-07-10 at 21:51 -0700, David Miller wrote:

> For these high performance 10Gbit cards it's a load balancing
> function, really, as all of the transmit queues go out to the same
> physical port so you could:
> 
> 1) Load balance on CPU number.
> 2) Load balance on "flow"
> 3) Load balance on destination MAC
> 
> etc. etc. etc.

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?

The rest of my understanding hinges on the above, so let me stop here.

cheers,
jamal

-
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