netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ifb: move tq from ifb

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: <1291473756.2159.31.camel@mojatatu>
Date:	Sat, 04 Dec 2010 09:42:36 -0500
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ifb: move tq from ifb_private

On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 09:18 -0500, jamal wrote:

> I like the splice idea but this patch makes me twitch
> a little. What test setup did you use to check it?

Ok, here's one thing you changed which is important. We do:

 -->XXX-->rq-->tq-->XXX-->

rq is controlled by queue limit. 
We only load rq to tq if all of tq is empty. If it is not
we dont move things over. Essentially this is a flow
control scheme. We dont want many sources to be overwhelming
us with packets and every time we grab a txqlen number of packets.
For this reason:
I would be comfortable if all you did was to add the splice
after you skb_peek() - i think that would be a good improvement
which is not bound to break anything else.

cheers,
jamal

--
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