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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:28:42 +0800 From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com> To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> Cc: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ifb: add multi-queue support On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:38:56 +0800 > Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com> wrote: >> >> Oh, :) . I know more than one companies use kernel threads to forward >> packets, and there isn't explicit extra overhead at all. And as you >> know, as throughput increases, NAPI will bind the NIC to a CPU, and >> softirqd will be waked up to do the work, which should be done in >> SoftIRQ context. At that time, there isn't any difference between my >> approach and the current kernel's. >> > Why not make IFB a NAPI device. This would get rid of the extra soft-irq > round trip from going through netif_rx(). It would also behave like > regular multi-queue recieive device, and eliminate need for seperate > tasklets or threads. > It needs to send remote SoftIRQ, as Receiving Packet Steering, and we must support a extra interface to map load to CPUs. -- Regards, Changli Gao(xiaosuo@...il.com) -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists