netdev - Re: [PATCH 0/3] Basic deferred TX queue flushing infrastructure.

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: <20140824.120854.1649653834184145660.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 24 Aug 2014 12:08:54 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	jhs@...atatu.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, therbert@...gle.com,
	hannes@...essinduktion.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Basic deferred TX queue flushing infrastructure.

From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:57:32 -0400

> Clearly, the best thing to do is avoid altogether the need to have
> such a list. The only reason you need a list around is because you
> dont know how much you can send to the driver. tx_win idea may not
> be the best but it tried to address that issue.

I think it is unavoidable for us to have to do a "send and recheck
queue state" approach, because of the issues I brought up the other
day.

Every driver has it's own set of restrictions and how many TX slots
a given SKB can consume in it's TX queue.

So from that perspective a list we perform retries on is an approach
we must consider seriously.
--
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