netdev - RE: Scaling problem with a lot of AF_PACKET sockets on different interfaces

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: <1370613289.24311.419.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Fri, 07 Jun 2013 06:54:49 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>
Cc:	Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
	"Vitaly V. Bursov" <vitalyb@...enet.dn.ua>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: Scaling problem with a lot of AF_PACKET sockets on different
 interfaces

On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 14:30 +0100, David Laight wrote:

> Looks like the ptype_base[] should be per 'dev'?
> Or just put entries where ptype->dev != null_or_dev on a per-interface
> list and do two searches?

Yes, but then we would have two searches instead of one in fast path.

ptype_base[] is currently 16 slots, 256 bytes on x86_64.
Presumably the per device list could be a single list, instead of a hash
table, but still...

If the application creating hundred or thousand of AF_PACKET sockets is
a single process, I really question why using a single AF_PACKET was not
chosen.

We now have a FANOUT capability on AF_PACKET, so that its scalable to
million of packets per second.

I would rather try this way before adding yet another section in
__netif_receive_skb()

--
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