netdev - Re: High contention on the sk_buff

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: <20090319134540.GW11935@one.firstfloor.org>
Date:	Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:45:40 +0100
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@...bigcorporation.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ghaskins@...ell.com,
	vernux@...ibm.com, andi@...stfloor.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
	pmullaney@...ell.com
Subject: Re: High contention on the sk_buff_head.lock

> Do we have to rule-out per-CPU queues, that aggregate into a master
> queue in a batch-wise manner? 

TSO/GSO/USO is that actually in a very specific way. It batches
packets into larger packets and then less per packet locks need to be taken.  
It was unclear if that was used in this workload or not.

-Andi
-- 
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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