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:	Thu, 9 Jan 2014 17:21:54 -0800
From:	Cong Wang <>
To:	Eric Dumazet <>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <>,
	John Fastabend <>,
	"David S. Miller" <>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch net-next 4/4] net_sched: make ingress qdisc lockless

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Eric Dumazet <> wrote:
> Well, there is one qdisc, and if your NIC is multiqueue, with for
> example 32 queues, you can have 32 cpu happily using this qdisc at once.

I did see this, but still don't see the problem.

> Thats why you need the spinlock.

It looks like you are saying we queue the packets somewhere
in qdisc_enqueue_root() therefore needs a spinlock, but looking
at the code:

static inline int qdisc_enqueue(struct sk_buff *skb, struct Qdisc *sch)
        qdisc_calculate_pkt_len(skb, sch);
        return sch->enqueue(skb, sch);

static inline int qdisc_enqueue_root(struct sk_buff *skb, struct Qdisc *sch)
        qdisc_skb_cb(skb)->pkt_len = skb->len;
        return qdisc_enqueue(skb, sch) & NET_XMIT_MASK;

so it almost equals to calling ->enqueue directly, for ingress, which is
ingress_enqueue(). Except updating some stats, the only thing
it does is calling tc_classify().

So where is the problem at qdisc layer? I must miss something too obvious...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists