netdev - Re: Socket buffer sizes with autotuning

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:48:34 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	hkchu@...gle.com, johnwheffner@...il.com, rick.jones2@...com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Socket buffer sizes with autotuning

David Miller wrote:
> From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:06:48 +0200
> 
>> The only big problem then would be if there are more submitting threads
>> than packets in the TX queue, but I would consider that unlikely for
>> GB+ NICs at least (might be an issue for older designs with smaller queues)
> 
> It's probably exactly what happens in those chat server benchmarks.

In that case we might be better off just blocking some of these threads
until the TX queue cleared? What good is it to send faster than the
network allows?

-Andi


--
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