netdev - Re: Why do we use RX queue mapping for TX?

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: <CAHA+R7OVHgwQBM200UZDKiw5eypuzhWj=B4E3MRkOK3yViZDCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:11:09 -0800
From:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why do we use RX queue mapping for TX?

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com> wrote:
>
> 2) This breaks the queue mapping specified by an skbedit action,
> since for TX queues the index starts with 0 while for RX it starts with 1
> (for some reason I don't see yet). There is at least a mismatch.

So queue 0 is reserved for TX, at least for bonding queue mapping.

But for sch_mq, all queues are used, 0 is merely the default one.
This means we should still allow user to specify queue 0 for TX.

We are trying to do queue mapping for containers, queue 0 isn't
special for us at all, therefore I don't see why we should reserve it
at least for hardware TX queues.

*I think* we should use the same strategy for TX queue mapping like
RX queue mapping, where ->queue_mapping = 0 means "not set",
while ->queue_mapping maps to a real queue index starting at 0.
This would also make ->queue_mapping have the same meaning
across RX -> TX if we really need to preserve it.
--
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