netdev - Re: [PATCH v4] rfs: Receive Flow Steering

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]

Date:	Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:33:33 -0700
From:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
To:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
CC:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] rfs: Receive Flow Steering

> 
> This is true.  There is a fundamental question of whether scheduler
> should lead networking or vice versa.  The advantages of networking
> following scheduler seem to become more apparent on heavily loaded
> systems or with threads that handle more than one flow.

I will confess to being in the networking should follow the scheduler camp :)

> I'm not sure these two models have to be mutually exclusive, we are
> looking at some ways to make a hybrid model.

It is perhaps too speculative on my part, but if the host has no control over 
the remote addressing of the connections to/from it, doesn't that suggest that 
allowing networking to lead the scheduler gives "external forces" more say in 
intra-system resource consumption than we might want them to have?

rick jones
--
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