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: <20100430.115715.216750975.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	tglx@...utronix.de
Cc:	shemminger@...tta.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	ak@...goyle.fritz.box, netdev@...r.kernel.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
	peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: OFT - reserving CPU's for networking

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:19:36 +0200 (CEST)

> Aside of that I seriously doubt that you can do networking w/o time
> and timers.

You're right that we need timestamps and the like.

But only if we actually process the packets on these restricted cpus :-)

If we use RPS and farm out all packets to other cpus, ie. just doing
the driver work and the remote cpu dispatch on these "offline" cpus,
it is doable.

Then we can do cool tricks like having the cpu spin on a mwait() on the
network device's status descriptor in memory.

In any event I agree with you, it's a cool idea at best, and likely
not really practical.
--
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