netdev - Re: [PATCH] Software receive packet steering

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: <65634d660904211152l6c17aa6dpf7e626474acfe499@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 11:52:07 -0700
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Software receive packet steering

>> Hello Tom
>>
>> I was thinking about your patch (and David's one), and thought it could be
>> possible to spread packets to other cpus only if current one is under stress.
>>
>> A posssible metric would be to test if softirq is handled by ksoftirqd
>> (stress situation) or not.
>>
>> Under moderate load, we could have one active cpu (and fewer cache line
>> transferts), keeping good latencies.
>>
>> I tried alternative approach to solve the Multicast problem raised some time ago,
>> but still have one cpu handling one device. Only wakeups were defered to a
>> workqueue (and possibly another cpu) if running from ksoftirq only.
>> Patch not yet ready for review, but based on a previous patch that was more
>> intrusive (touching kernel/softirq.c)
>>
>> Under stress, your idea permits to use more cpus for a fast NIC and get better
>> throughput. Its more generic.
>
> I would like to see some way to have multiple CPU's pulling packets and adapting
> the number of CPU's being used based on load. Basically, turn all device is into
> receive multiqueue. The mapping could be adjusted by user level (see irqbalancer).
>

That is possible and don't think the design of our patch would
preclude it, but I am worried that each time the mapping from a
connection to a CPU changes this could cause of out of order packets.
I suppose this is similar problem to changing the RSS hash mappings in
a device.

Tom
--
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