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: <20090318.185441.138157931.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	sven@...bigcorporation.com
Cc:	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

From: Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@...bigcorporation.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:43:27 -0700

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

That would violate the properties and characteristics expected by
the packet scheduler, wrt. to fair based fairness, rate limiting,
etc.

The only legal situation where we can parallelize to single device
is where only the most trivial packet scheduler is attached to
the device and the device is multiqueue, and that is exactly what
we do right now.
--
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