netdev - Re: OFT - reserving CPU's for networking

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: <20100430.153038.62351857.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 30 Apr 2010 15:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	andi@...stfloor.org
Cc:	tglx@...utronix.de, shemminger@...tta.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: OFT - reserving CPU's for networking

From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 23:01:31 +0200

> Besides it seems to me that dispatching is something the NIC should
> just do directly. "RPS only CPU" would be essentially just an 
> interrupt mitigation/flow redirection scheme that a lot of NICs
> do anyways.

We've already established that the NIC can't do a complete job in all
important cases, that's why we've integrated the RPS/RFS patches in
the first place.

And we don't want it to, because the decision mechanisms for steering
that we using now are starting to get into the stateful territory and
that's verbotton for NIC offload as far as we're concerned.
--
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