| 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: <1292856346.2800.54.camel@edumazet-laptop> Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:45:46 +0100 From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...x.dk> Cc: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netfilter-devel <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next-2.6] netfilter: x_tables: dont block BH while reading counters Le lundi 20 décembre 2010 à 14:42 +0100, Jesper Dangaard Brouer a écrit : > I have tested the patch on 2.6.35. Which implies I also needed to > cherry-pick 870f67dcf7ef, which implements the vzalloc() call. (Latest > net-next has a problem with my HP CCISS driver/controller or the PCI > layout, and will not boot) > Ah wait, you need to switch from cciss to hpsa driver, I hit same problem some weeks ago ;) (and eventually rename your partitions to /dev/sdaX instead of /dev/cciss/c0d0pX) > According to the function_graph trace, the execution time of > get_counters() has increased (approx) from 109 ms to 120 ms, which is > the expected result. > > The results are not all positive, but I think its related to the > debugging options I have enabled. > > Because I now see packet drops if my 1Gbit/s pktgen script are sending > packet with a packet size below 512 bytes, which is "only" approx 230 > kpps (this is 1Gbit/s on my 10G labsetup where I have seen 5 Mpps). > > There is no packet overruns/drops, iif I run "iptables -vnL > > /dev/null" without tracing enabled and only 1Gbit/s pktgen at 512 > bytes packets. If I enable tracing while calling iptables I see > packet drops/overruns. So I guess this is caused by the tracing > overhead. yes, probably :) > > I'll try to rerun my test without all the lock debugging options > enabled. > 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