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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Fri, 11 Apr 2014 11:44:07 +0100
From:	Jonathan Cooper <>
To:	Eric Dumazet <>
CC:	Edward Cree <>, <>,
	Shawn Bohrer <>,
	Shawn Bohrer <>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] udp: allow busy_poll on some unconnected sockets

On 10/04/14 20:04, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 19:38 +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
>> On 10/04/14 19:32, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2014-04-10 at 19:04 +0100, Edward Cree wrote:
>>>> Tested by setting IFF_SINGLE_NAPI in sfc; a UDP ping-pong test showed a
>>>>   performance benefit from sysctl net.core.busy_{read,poll}=50 in both the
>>>>   connected and unconnected case, where previously it only saw the benefit
>>>>   when the socket had been connected.
>>> Right, but how often do we have single NAPI devices on hosts wanting
>>> very low latencies ?
>> Well, sfc only has a single NAPI context per device, and I'm fairly sure
>> most sfc users want very low latencies.
>> Or have I misunderstood?
> sfc is multi queue/channel, but has a single NAPI instance ?
> Sounds wierd.
> Please explain me, how GRO can be efficient.
> I believe you have one napi per channel.
Whoops, this is my fault, I derped reading our NAPI code. You are 
entirely correct, we do have multiple NAPI instances per device, so our 
proposed scheme is unworkable. We'll just have to connect the socket.
Sorry to waste your time.

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