netdev - Re: multi bpf filter will impact performance?

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: <AANLkTikzqKHcJFq6V_X=wkwyxBtq1fnNVcYC0Kb_QXqD@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 3 Dec 2010 17:40:06 +0800
From:	Junchang Wang <junchangwang@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Rui <wirelesser@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Fenghua Yu <fyu2000@...il.com>
Subject: Re: multi bpf filter will impact performance?

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
> But its rather important for performance that each cpu store packets
> into its own packet socket or ring buffer, to avoid false sharing
> slowdowns.

Hi Eric,
But the current situation is that a single socket (AF_PACKET for example)
can only create a ring buffer, meaning that multiple cores will compete
for passing data to user-space programs. Right?

>
> With such a setup (split packets to four cpus, then make sure one cpu
> deliver packets to one particular PACKET socket/ring buffer), it should
> really be fast enough.
>

Is there any patch or configuration? I'm preparing such a patch. I wonder
whether there's conflict.


Thanks.

--Junchang
--
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