netdev - Re: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 1/2] mq: support for bonding

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: <96591267345513@webmail87.yandex.ru>
Date:	Sun, 28 Feb 2010 11:25:13 +0300
From:	"\"Oleg A. Arkhangelsky\"" <sysoleg@...dex.ru>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 1/2] mq: support for bonding

Hi Eric,

27.02.10, 17:29, "Eric Dumazet" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:

>  My dev machine has 16 cpus, and my network card has 16 queues per NIC

We should borrow this number from real device when enslaving it, picking
maximum value from among slaves. But the main problem is that we don't
known anything about slaves in bond_create() and there is no way to change
number of tx queues later. Maybe we could solve this by adding new module
parameter for bonding (num_tx_queues)?

>  Every xmit has to get this lock(s) and performance is not optimal.

You're right. I don't notice it. I see two solutions:

1) Convert all rw_locks to RCU mechanism
2) Use plain array instead of linked list to store list of slaves. In this case we
don't need to lock when doing bond_for_each_slave().

.. Or am I wrong? What do you think?

-- 
wbr, Oleg.
--
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