netdev - Re: 2.6.24 BUG: soft lockup

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: <20080328133845.GA14565@ami.dom.local>
Date:	Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:38:45 +0100
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Matheos Worku <Matheos.Worku@....COM>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, hadi@...erus.ca
Subject: Re: 2.6.24 BUG: soft lockup - CPU#X

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 06:38:09PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
...
> Given that premise, we might as well let one CPU transmit as much
> as possible since moving to another CPU after each packet is going
> to bounce a lot more than just the spin lock and that is going to
> be expensive.

Considering this, I wonder why using this __LINK_STATE_QDISC_RUNNING
flag to control enqueuing as well would be a wrong idea? Wouldn't this
enforce pseudo affinity?

Regards,
Jarek P.
--
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