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: <412e6f7f0911162138k6537afd1l5f8eeeaa6c636289@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:38:29 +0800
From:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	shemminger@...tta.com, kaber@...sh.net, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	therbert@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ifb: add multi-queue support

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.


-- 
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