netdev - Re: [PATCH] geneve: Use GRO cells 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1440950156.8932.154.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Sun, 30 Aug 2015 08:55:56 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	jesse@...ira.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] geneve: Use GRO cells infrastructure.

On Sat, 2015-08-29 at 13:45 -0700, David Miller wrote:

> 
> While reviewing this I noticed that the gro cells code goes through all
> of the trouble of allocating full per-cpu objects to manage the packet
> queuing and processing, but then it uses a full spinlock for protection.
> 
> It ought to be sufficient to just block out BH processing or, at worst,
> local cpu interrupts, to protect the individual per-cpu cells.

Original commit envisioned a possible improvement of gro_cells in case a
NIC receives all GRE traffic on a single RX queue.

(If for example Toeplitz hash RSS looks at outer IP header, and all
traffic is encapsulated with a constant tuple)

Idea was to add a mode where we could select a gro cell not based on
current cpu number but a hash based on flow software flow dissection.

If we do not plan to add this feature, we certainly can remove the
spinlocks now we have per cpu cells.

--
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