netdev - Re: [RFC v2 net-next 00/10] Time based packet transmission

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

Message-ID: <20180123052601.oqrh3cnwfpoxmsdg@localhost>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jan 2018 21:26:01 -0800
From:   Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:     Jesus Sanchez-Palencia <jesus.sanchez-palencia@...el.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, jhs@...atatu.com, xiyou.wangcong@...il.com,
        jiri@...nulli.us, vinicius.gomes@...el.com,
        intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
        henrik@...tad.us, tglx@...utronix.de, john.stultz@...aro.org,
        andre.guedes@...el.com, ivan.briano@...el.com,
        levi.pearson@...man.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 net-next 00/10] Time based packet transmission

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 09:23:27PM -0800, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 03:06:11PM -0800, Jesus Sanchez-Palencia wrote:
> > First, a baseline test was ran for 10 minutes with the plain kernel only:
> > 
> > |                 | plain kernel @ 1ms |
> > |-----------------+--------------------+
> > | min (ns):       |    +4.820000e+02   |
> > | max (ns):       |    +9.999300e+05   |
> > | pk-pk:          |    +9.994480e+05   |
> 
> ...
> 
> > |                 |    tbs SW @ 1ms   |  tbs HW @ 1ms  | tbs HW @ 250 us |
> > |-----------------+-------------------+----------------+-----------------|
> > | min (ns):       |    +1.510000e+02  |  +4.420000e+02 |   +4.260000e+02 |
> > | max (ns):       |    +9.977030e+05  |  +5.060000e+02 |   +5.060000e+02 |
> > | pk-pk:          |    +9.975520e+05  |  +6.400000e+01 |   +8.000000e+01 |
> 
> I wonder about these worst case measurements of 999 and 998
> milliseconds.  It almost looks like you missed one entire period.
  ^^^^
microseconds

> Could this simply be a bug in the test setup?
> 
> Thanks,
> Richard