| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:14:34 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: mchan@...adcom.com Cc: andy@...yhouse.net, jfeeney@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] bnx2: Increase max rx ring size from 1K to 2K From: "Michael Chan" <mchan@...adcom.com> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:30:54 -0700 > A number of customers are reporting packet loss under certain workloads > (e.g. heavy bursts of small packets) with flow control disabled. A larger > rx ring helps to prevent these losses. > > No change in default rx ring size and memory consumption. > > Signed-off-by: Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net> > Acked-by: John Feeney <jfeeney@...hat.com> > Signed-off-by: Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com> I don't see how it's any better to queue things more deeply in hardware, compared to simply using hardware flow control since that's what it's for and makes the queuing happen in the networking stack of the sender, in software, which in the end performs better and gives better feedback to the source of the data. These huge RX queue sizes are absolutely rediculious, and I've complained about this before. And instead of seeing less of this, I keep seeing more of this stuff. Please exert some pushback on these folks who are doing such insane things. Thanks. -- 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