netdev - Re: [PATCH] ifb: add multi-queue support

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20091116220247.564fb0b6@nehalam>
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:02:47 -0800
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
	eric.dumazet@...il.com, therbert@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ifb: add multi-queue support

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:38:29 +0800
Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote:
> > From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
> > Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:39:05 -0800
> >
> >> My $.02 is that receive packet steering RPS should be done generically at
> >> receive layer. Then all the CPU, mapping and configuration issues can be
> >> done once, not just for IFB, Bridge, VLAN, ... The number of users of IFB
> >> is small, and setup is complex. Steering packets in IFB is optimizing only
> >> a rarely used corner.
> >>
> >> Layered link services like IFB need to be multi-threaded lockless to maintain
> >> the advantages of multi-queue and RPS.
> >
> > You're probably right.
> >
> 
> So I have to wait RPS, and after it gets merged, I'll back with
> multi-threaded lockless IFB.

Please don't wait... Help, test it make sure it works.
--
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