netdev - Re: [RFC v1] hand off skb list to other cpu to submit to upper layer

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]

Date:	Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:31:15 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com
Cc:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com,
	shemminger@...tta.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v1] hand off skb list to other cpu to submit to upper
 layer

From: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:20:23 +0800

> If the machines might have a couple of NICs and every NIC has CPU_NUM queues,
> binding them evenly might cause more cache-miss/ping-pong. I didn't test
> multiple receiving NICs scenario as I couldn't get enough hardware.

In the net-next-2.6 tree, since we mark incoming packets with
skb_record_rx_queue() properly, we'll make a more favorable choice of
TX queue.

You may want to figure out what that isn't behaving well in your
case.

I don't think we should do any kind of software spreading for such
capable hardware, it defeats the whole point of supporting the
multiqueue features.
--
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