| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 09:51:09 -0700 From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com> To: Sharat Masetty <sharat04@...il.com> Cc: Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: Question on Lockless TX On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Sharat Masetty <sharat04@...il.com> wrote: > Can someone explain to me, why would a driver choose to implement > Lockless TX? What are the advantages/disadvantages of choosing to do > so?Any performance benefits? A reference to a sample driver > implementation would be helpful to understand. > Locks in the TX path are needed provide mutual exclusion to the underlying HW queue and other structures. Some drivers either don't need any form of locking because their is no queue to protect (often the case with virtual drivers like loopback and bonding), others might provide their own locking at higher granularity or for other purposes. Generally, taking fewer locks can reduce lock contention, atomic operations, and cache line misses. If you grep for NETIF_F_LLTX under drivers/net you can find examples of drivers that support this. Also, please look at Documentation/networking/netdevices.txt. Tom > Thanks > Sharat > -- > 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 -- 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