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: <20080921.021702.37632261.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 21 Sep 2008 02:17:02 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	James@...erbug.co.uk
Cc:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, dwalker@...sta.com,
	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: James Courtier-Dutton <James@...erbug.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 10:13:47 +0100

> Why do you have to preserve packet ordering?
> TCP/IP does not preserve packet ordering across the network.

Yes, but we should preserve per-flow ordering as much as
possible within the local system for optimal performance.

Things fall apart completely, even with TCP, once you reorder more
than 2 or 3 packets deep.

> Sharing the sliding window between CPUs might be interesting!

Again, Steffen's patches take care of this issue.
--
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