netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:39:20 -0700
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Receive Packet Steering

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:02 AM, David Miller<davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
> Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:52:13 -0700
>
>>> Just to keep this topic alive, I want to mention two things:
>>>
>>> 1) Just the other day support for the IXGBE "Flow Director" was
>>>   added to net-next-2.6, it basically does flow steering in
>>>   hardware.  It remembers where the last TX for a flow was
>>>   made, and steers RX traffic there.
>>>
>>
>> That's very cool.  Is this able to preserve in order delivery?
>
> I don't know how the hardware works to this level of detail,
> sorry.  But yet that's a very important issue.
>
>> What is the advantage over using a shared skbuff queue and making
>> doing a single IPI to schedule the backlog device on the remote CPU?
>
> No locking.  Queue is only ever accessed by the local cpu.
>

There's no lock to put the call_single_data structures onto remote
CPU's list?  Looking at generic_exec_single...
--
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