netdev - Re: [RFC] multiqueue changes

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]

Date:	Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:03:21 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, mchan@...adcom.com,
	kaber@...sh.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] multiqueue changes

Jarek Poplawski a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 04:39:07AM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
>> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:30:29 +0000
>>
>>> Right, but it's not a 50% chance, I guess? A user most of the time
>>> gets consistently multiqueue or non-multiqueue behavior after open,
>>> unless I miss something. Then such an exceptional state could be
>>> handled by real_num_tx_queues (just like in case of powered of cpus).
>>> The main difference is to hold in num_tx_queues something that is
>>> really available vs max possible value for all configs.
>> I see your point, yes this would seem to be a reasonable way
>> to start handling num_tx_queues and real_num_tx_queues.
> 
> Very nice! So, I hope Eric should be satisfied with these requested
> comments already :-)
> 
Sure, but I prefer a patch from you ;)

--
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