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

Message-Id: <20091116.191054.131722163.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:10:54 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	shemminger@...tta.com
Cc:	xiaosuo@...il.com, kaber@...sh.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	therbert@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ifb: add multi-queue support

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.
--
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