netdev - Re: [RFC 1/2] net: Introduce recvmmsg socket syscall

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: <20090522200611.GB967@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
Date:	Fri, 22 May 2009 16:06:11 -0400
From:	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>
To:	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Chris Van Hoof <vanhoof@...hat.com>,
	Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/2] net: Introduce recvmmsg socket syscall

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 08:06:52PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Meaning receive multiple messages, reducing the number of syscalls and
> net stack entry/exit operations.
> 
> Next patches will introduce mechanisms where protocols that want to
> optimize this operation will provide an unlocked_recvmsg operation.
> 

Not to throw more questions into the mix again, but didn't Ingo write a
batching syscall a while back, which let you issue several syscalls in one trap
to kernel space?  I understand that your approach has some efficiency gains over
that, but did that ever get accepted upstream?  Is the overlap there sufficient
to make this approach redundant?  Or are the gains in performance here
sufficient to warrant this new call?

Regards
Neil
--
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