netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/2]: Remote softirq invocation infrastructure.

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: <20080920.130058.90080260.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sat, 20 Sep 2008 13:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dwalker@...sta.com
Cc:	arjan@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	steffen.klassert@...unet.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2]: Remote softirq invocation infrastructure.

From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:02:09 -0700

> In the case of networking and block I would think a lot of the softirq
> activity is asserted from userspace.. Maybe the scheduler shouldn't be
> migrating these tasks, or could take this softirq activity into
> account ..

Absolutely wrong.

On a per-flow basis you want to push the work down as far
as possible down to individual cpus.  Why do you think the
hardware folks are devoting silicon to RX multiqueue facilities
that spread the RX work amongst available cpus using MSI-X?
--
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