netdev - Re: [net-next, PATCH 2/2] net: socionext: remove mmio reads on 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: <20181214143259.GA12115@apalos>
Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:32:59 +0200
From:   Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
To:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc:     "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jaswinder Singh <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu@...aro.org>,
        Masahisa Kojima <masahisa.kojima@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next, PATCH 2/2] net: socionext: remove mmio reads on Tx

Hi Ard,
> > >
> > > So shouldn't we do this *after* processing Rx, and only if there is budget left?
> >
> > I am not really sure, this would drown Tx processing if you had a bunch of
> > received packets that exhausted the budget.
> > Intel 1gbit drivers are doing something similar. They reclaim Tx prior to
> > processing Rx. The only thing that could be checked here i guess is keep the
> > napi poll running if *all* Tx descriptors were processed at some point instead
> > of re-enabling irqs.
> >
> 
> The reason I suggest it is because you quoted it from the documentation :-)

Yes i understand. I had my doubts as well.
That's hy i tried following the example of another driver.

> 
> But if reality deviates from that, then sure, let's follow the
> examples of others.

Agree. Unless someone has any objections i am fine with the current patches.


Thanks!
/Ilias