netdev - Re: [PATCH 20/31]: pkt_sched: Perform bulk of qdisc destruction in RCU.

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]

Date:	Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:51:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	hadi@...erus.ca, kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	johannes@...solutions.net, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/31]: pkt_sched: Perform bulk of qdisc destruction in
 RCU.

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:43:06 +0800

> So let's assume that these flows have been distributed uniformly
> by both the RX hash and the TX hash such that each queue is handling
> ~250 flows.  If the TX hash does not match the result produced by
> the RX hash, you're going to get a hell lot of contention once you
> get into the NIC driver on the TX side.

How so?  If the TX hash is well distributed, which it should be,
it is at least going to approximate the distribution provided by
the RX hash.

> The benefit as far as I can see is that this would allow a packet's
> entire journey through Linux to stay on exactly one CPU.  There will
> be zero memory written by multiple CPUs as far as that packet is
> concerned.

So will the existing one, enough of the time for it to matter,
and yes even on a router or firewall.

At least this is my belief :-)
--
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