netdev - Re: [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode

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: <0cbfcbf5-0b54-f810-1891-b0d34fe97c6d@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 7 Jan 2018 21:00:28 -0700
From:   David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To:     Chris Mi <chrism@...lanox.com>, Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>,
        "marcelo.leitner@...il.com" <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Cc:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "gerlitz.or@...il.com" <gerlitz.or@...il.com>,
        "stephen@...workplumber.org" <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [patch iproute2 v6 0/3] tc: Add -bs option to batch mode

On 1/7/18 7:03 PM, Chris Mi wrote:

>> Did you measure the effect of increasing batch sizes?
> Yes. Even if we enlarge the batch size bigger than 10, there is no big improvement.

That will change over time so the tc command should allow auto-batching
to work up to the message size limit.


> I think that's because current kernel doesn't process the requests in parallel.
> If kernel processes the requests in parallel, I believe specifying a bigger batch size
> will get a better result.
>>
>> I wonder whether specifying the batch size is necessary at all. Couldn't batch
>> mode just collect messages until either EOF or an incompatible command is
>> encountered which then triggers a commit to kernel? This might simplify
>> code quite a bit.
> That's a good suggestion.

Thanks for your time on this, Chris.