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: <20081105.034224.167388197.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:42:24 -0800 (PST)
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: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:39:04 -0700 (PDT)

> 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.

I couldn't get anywhere with this idea.

The problem is that 16-bits provides not enough precision for accurate
divisions by multiplication.

For example, for a divisor of 1500 and a shift of 16 neither 43 nor 44
provides an accurate calculation.

So we'd need to use a u64 and a shift of 32, and on 32-bit cpus that
could be expensive, but perhaps not as expensive as the divide.


--
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