netdev - Re: [PATCH v5] 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:	Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:04:34 -0700
From:	Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] rfs: Receive Flow Steering

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le mardi 20 avril 2010 à 07:38 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
>
>> Does this problem has relationship with your patch? No. If the rxhash
>> isn't provided by hardware, we can get more throughput from you patch,
>> and on the other side, we don't lose anything but potential more hash
>> collision.
>>
>
> I am not sure what you call hash collision. There is no hash chain here.
>
> This 32bit hash is a jhash one, and we only need 1 to 12 bits in it, I
> am pretty sure its OK.
>
Maybe for the purposes of RPS, but hash collisions could definitely be
an issue in RFS.  If two active connections hit the same rps_flow
entry this may cause thrashing of those connections between CPUs.  I
think your patch may increase the probability of this happening.

>
>
>
--
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