netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <65634d660911201612y12a9b5bnb6685da040ad832d@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:12:00 -0800
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] rps: core implementation

> I guess my confusion is from the:
>
>                                __raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ);
>
> you are doing as you set the cpus in rps_remote_softirq_cpus.
>
> Why do you need to schedule the local RX softirq, when we know we're
> in a NAPI poll loop and thus that we're in a softirq, and thus that we
> will fire off the IPIs at the end of net_rx_action()?
>
> That's what you're doing, the softirq raising just seems superfluous.
>

Ah, right. If RPS can't be used non-NAPI case, this line is now
superfluous.  It can be removed.

Thanks
--
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