netdev - Re: tbench wrt. loopback TSO

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: <20081027.123717.71252945.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	zbr@...emap.net
Cc:	ilpo.jarvinen@...sinki.fi, netdev@...r.kernel.org, efault@....de,
	mingo@...e.hu, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Subject: Re: tbench wrt. loopback TSO

From: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:35:02 +0300

> On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:39:04AM -0700, David Miller (davem@...emloft.net) wrote:
> > One idea immediately occurs to me.  Since we're effectively limited
> > to a 64K TSO frame, and the MSS is some value smaller than that, we
> > can probably get away with a reciprocol divide.  Even using a 16-bit
> > inverse value would suffice, so we wouldn't need to use u64's like
> > some other pieces of code do.  A u32 would be enough.
> 
> But why do we need to trim that last bytes at the first place at all?
> Is it just enough to 'binary and' with 0xffff? Or is it what you mean? :)

We need to trim because we want to send full sized frames onto the
network, and those trailing bytes will make sub-MSS sized frame
instead of coalescing with the next round of user sendmsg() data.
--
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