netdev - Re: Killing sk->sk_callback

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: <20080616.185328.85842051.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 16 Jun 2008 18:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	pmullaney@...ell.com
Cc:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, GHaskins@...ell.com,
	chuck.lever@...cle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Killing sk->sk_callback_lock

From: "Patrick Mullaney" <pmullaney@...ell.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:38:23 -0600

> The overhead I was trying to address was scheduler overhead.

Neither Herbert nor I are convinced of this yet, and you have
to show us why you think this is the problem and not (in
our opinion) the more likely sk_callback_lock overhead.

I am tiring of stating this over and over so please address
this in any future correspondance.

Once the task is woken up the first time, future calls to
these callback functions should do nothing other than take
the sk_callback_lock and test some state.

Since the task is awake already, wakeups should be bypassed
or at worst be a nop.
--
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