netdev - Re: [PATCH 01/11] rxrpc: Add a common object cache

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]

Date:	Tue, 08 Mar 2016 15:15:14 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dhowells@...hat.com
Cc:	linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] rxrpc: Add a common object cache

From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 13:02:28 +0000

> David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Does it make sense to maintain a FIFO list of connections (though this would
>> mean potentially taking a spinlock every time I get a packet)?
> 
> It occurs to me that only inactive connections would need to be on an LRU
> list.  Any connection with packets or active calls to deal with wouldn't be on
> the list.

In that kind of scheme you have to decide if it's possible to elide a
response in order to intentionally keep objects off the "inactive" LRU
list.  I bet there is.