netdev - Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Don't run __qdisc

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: <20090725110409.GA3086@ami.dom.local>
Date:	Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:04:09 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Don't run __qdisc_run() on a stopped TX queue

On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:24:36AM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
...
> However, I am definitely with you in that we should perform this
> optimisation since it makes sense for the majority of people who
> use multiqueue TX.
> 
> So the fact that our current architecture penalises the people
> who actually need multiqueue TX in order to ensure correctness
> for the people who cannot use multiqueue TX effectively (i.e.,
> those who use non-default qdiscs) makes me uneasy.

It would be nice to establish what difference is made by each part of
this patch. The check for stopped queue before each skb xmit was done
earlier too, so it's not exactly multiqueue penalization.

Cheers,
Jarek P.
--
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