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  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]
Date:	Sun, 23 Sep 2012 19:40:33 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...i.de>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, rick.jones2@...com,
	subramanian.vijay@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] tcp: use order-3 pages in tcp_sendmsg()


On Sunday 2012-09-23 18:16, David Miller wrote:
>> On Friday 2012-09-21 18:27, David Miller wrote:
>> 
>>>From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>>>Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 17:48:31 +0200
>>>
>>>> There is probably a reason why lo default MTU is 16436 ?
>>>
>>>That's what fit into L1 caches back in 1999
>> 
>> Would it make sense to automatically set lo's MTU on device
>> registration to the actual size of the L1 that the $running system
>> has?
>
>I think a fixed value of 64K would be a easiest, because another issue
>is that back in 1999 we didn't have GRO/GSO/etc.


Cache sizes, and an oddity.

L1 cache sizes have not increased ever since (the 2011 Intel i7-2600
has the same amount of L1 as a 1998ish AMD K6-2), and the Atom N450
even has less, namely 24d+32i, meaning a 13000ish MTU might be more
accurate for netbooks of this kind.

What would a MTU of 64K buy? Offloading seems pointless for the lo
device. There is no hardware to offload it to - well, the
machine already has the packet too.
--
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