netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/4] llc: use a device based hash table to speed up multicast delivery

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: <200912040153.11395.opurdila@ixiacom.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Dec 2009 01:53:11 +0200
From:	Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com>
To:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] llc: use a device based hash table to speed up multicast delivery

On Friday 04 December 2009 01:25:13 you wrote:
> On Fri,  4 Dec 2009 00:31:37 +0200
> 
> Octavian Purdila <opurdila@...acom.com> wrote:
> > This patch adds a per SAP device based hash table to solve the
> > multicast delivery scalability issues for the case where the are a
> > large number of interfaces and a large number of sockets (bound to the
> > same SAP) are used.
> 
> Rather than adding hash table and rwlock, why not hash list RCU
> and a single spin lock
> 

I have a partial version with RCU and single spinlock, but then I ran into a 
(Eric's I think) patch which moved the UDP lock per bucket. And since RCU 
can't help on the write side (in this instance each time we bound or delete 
the socket) it was not clear to me what is the best approach.

Should I go ahead with the RCU and single lock?

--
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