netdev - Re: [RFC] NAPI as kobject proposal

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: <20100203.173305.196876047.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:33:05 -0800 (PST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	shemminger@...tta.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] NAPI as kobject proposal

From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:18:39 -0800

> As part of receive packet steering there is a requirement to add an
> additional parameter to this for the CPU map.

Hmmm, where did this come from?

The RPS maps are per-device.

I think I vaguely recall you "suggesting" that the RPS maps become
per-NAPI.

But, firstly, I didn't see any movement in that part of the
discussion.

And, secondly, I don't think this makes any sense at all.

Things are already overly complicated as it is.  Having the user know
what traffic goes to a particular RX queue (ie. NAPI instance) and set
the RPS map in some way specific to that RX queue is over the top.

If the issue is the case of sharing a NAPI instance between two
devices, there are a few other ways to deal with this.

One I would suggest is to simply clone the RPS map amongst the
devices sharing a NAPI instance.

I currently see NAPI kobjects is just an over-abstraction for a
perceived need rather than a real one.
--
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