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: <F169D4F5E1F1974DBFAFABF47F60C10A1C225B4C@orsmsx507.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:50:58 -0800
From:	"Brandeburg, Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/4]: net: Allow RX queue selection to seed TX queue
 hashing.

David Miller wrote:
> The idea is that drivers which implement multiqueue RX
> pre-seed the SKB by recording the RX queue selected by
> the hardware.
> 
> If such a seed is found on TX, we'll use that to select
> the outgoing TX queue.
> 
> This helps get more consistent load balancing on router
> and firewall loads.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
> ---
>  include/linux/skbuff.h |   15 +++++++++++++++
>  net/core/dev.c         |    8 ++++++++
>  2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

Hi Dave, thanks for doing this work, it looks very interesting, I'm curious 
what you think should happen with the tx / rx interrupts when every queue has 
a unique interrupt number.

I don't think the irqbalance daemon is smart enough to know that a given
tx queue should always end up either cache coherent (different core) or
core-coherent (same core) to the rx queue.

So, is it still expected that users running routing setups will always
have to hand-tune /proc/irq/NNN/smp_affinity for each of the tx and rx
queues?

Ideally the routing case would somehow end up working like the socket case
where the scheduler would notice the wakeups cross cpu and move the interrupt
for the routing case in the same way (I assume from your previous comments) it
would move the interrupt for a socket based application.

I hope to be able to test this today or tomorrow.--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ