netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/2] rps: core implementation

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: <20091119095730.GA7661@ff.dom.local>
Date:	Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:57:31 +0000
From:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] rps: core implementation

On 11-11-2009 07:53, Tom Herbert wrote:
> Third version of RPS.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
...
> @@ -2266,10 +2401,10 @@ void netif_nit_deliver(struct sk_buff *skb)
>  }
> 
>  /**
> - *	netif_receive_skb - process receive buffer from network
> + *	__netif_receive_skb - process receive buffer from network
>   *	@skb: buffer to process
>   *
> - *	netif_receive_skb() is the main receive data processing function.
> + *	__netif__napireceive_skb() is the main receive data processing function.

--------------->^^^^^^^^^^^^ ?

>   *	It always succeeds. The buffer may be dropped during processing
>   *	for congestion control or by the protocol layers.
>   *
> @@ -2280,7 +2415,8 @@ void netif_nit_deliver(struct sk_buff *skb)
>   *	NET_RX_SUCCESS: no congestion
>   *	NET_RX_DROP: packet was dropped
>   */
> -int netif_receive_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
> +
> +int __netif_receive_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
>  {
>  	struct packet_type *ptype, *pt_prev;
>  	struct net_device *orig_dev;
> @@ -2378,6 +2514,16 @@ out:
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(netif_receive_skb);
> 
> +int netif_receive_skb(struct sk_buff *skb)
> +{
> +	int cpu = get_rps_cpu(skb->dev, skb);
> +
> +	if (cpu < 0)

The description reads: "This solution queues packets early on in the
receive path on the backlog queues of other CPUs.", so I'm not sure
it's intended. Did you test it like this (and it was visibly worse)?:

	if (cpu < 0 || cpu == smp_processor_id())

> +		return __netif_receive_skb(skb);
> +	else
> +		return enqueue_to_backlog(skb, cpu);
> +}
> +

Jarek P.
--
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