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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <AANLkTik06=U-0r+4819pzNLZvs21UaWR+4uO6H1_he+=@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 11:27:39 -0400 From: Chetan Loke <chetanloke@...il.com> To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> Cc: Bhavesh Davda <bhavesh@...are.com>, "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, "pv-drivers@...are.com" <pv-drivers@...are.com>, "therbert@...gle.com" <therbert@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] rps and pvdrivers On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote: > Nope. Because if each packet goes through two cpus instead of one before > being queued to socket queue, you pay overhead and memory trafic between > these cpus. But if an interface is set in promisc-mode then why split the flows? And if rps is not enabled(which by default it isn't) then everything should just work as before. > > This is the reason why RPS is not automatically switched on. It might be > slower on some workloads. > I'm now generating multi-flow traffic pattern and still the same. Chetan -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists