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:	Fri, 17 Oct 2014 12:02:19 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <>
To:	Alexander Duyck <>
Cc:	David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
	"" <>,
	David Miller <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>,
	"" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: use hardware buffer pool to allocate skb

On Fri, 2014-10-17 at 11:28 -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:

> So long as it doesn't impact performance significantly I am fine with 
> it.  My concern is that you are bringing up issues that none of the 
> customers were brining up when I was at Intel, and the fixes you are 
> proposing are likely to result in customers seeing things they will 
> report as issues.

We regularly hit these issues at Google.

We have memory containers, and we detect quite easily if some layer is
lying, because we cant afford having 20% of headroom on our servers.

I am not claiming IGB is the only offender.

I am sorry if you believe it was an attack on IGB, or any network

truesize should really be the thing that protects us from OOM,
and apparently driver authors hitting TCP performance problems
thinks it is better to simply let TCP do no garbage collection.

It seems that nobody cares or even understand what I am saying,
so I should probably not care and suggest Google to buy PetaBytes of
memory, right ?

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