netdev - Re: Multicast packet loss

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:	Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:34:54 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To:	Brian Bloniarz <bmb@...enacr.com>
CC:	kchang@...enacr.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: Multicast packet loss

Brian Bloniarz a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> Here is an updated version of the patch.
> 
> This works great in all my tests so far.
> 
> Thanks,
> Brian Bloniarz

Cool

I am wondering if we should extend the mechanism and change
softirq_delay_exec() to wakeup a workqueue instead of
doing the loop from softirq handler, in case a given
level of stress / load is hit.

This could help machines with several cpus, and one NIC (without
multi RX queues) flooded by messages (not necessarly multicast trafic).
Imagine a media/chat server receiving XXX.000 frames / second

One cpu could be dedicated to pure softirq/network handling,
and other cpus could participate and handle the scheduler part if any.

Condition could be : 

- We run __do_softirq() from ksoftirqd and 
- We queued more than N 'struct softirq_delay' in softirq_delay_head
- We have more than one cpu online

--
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