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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:30:36 -0400
From:	Chris Snook <>
To:	Bodo Eggert <>
CC:	Rick Jones <>,,
	Auke <>, Ingo Molnar <>,
	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Anton Titov <>,
	"H. Willstrand" <>,,
	Jesse Brandeburg <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Andrew Morton <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: Bad network performance over 2Gbps

Bodo Eggert wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote:
>> Bodo Eggert wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Rick Jones wrote:
>>>> Be it kernel or user space, for consistent benchmark results it needs to
>>>> be
>>>> able to be turned-off without turning the code.  That leaves me in
>>>> agreement
>>>> with Stephen that if it must exist, the user space one would be
>>>> preferable.
>>>> It can be easily terminated with extreme prejudice.
>>> I agree that having a full-featured userspace balancer daemon with lots of
>>> intelligence will be theoretically better, but if you can have a simple
>>> daemon doing OK on many machines for less than the userspace daemon's
>>> kernel stack, why not?
>> Perhaps my judgement is too colored by benchmark(et)ing, and desires to have
>> repeatable results on things like neperf, but I very much like to know where
>> my interrupts are going and don't like them moving around. That is why I am
>> not particularly fond of either flavor of irq balancing.
>> That being the case, whatever is out there aught to be able to be disabled on
>> a running system without having to roll bits or reboot.
> Adding a "module" parameter to disable it should be cheap, isn't it?

Except the irq balancing is system-wide.  Adding per-device exemptions to an 
obsolete feature seems like the wrong way to go.

-- Chris
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