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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <CAJe_ZhfrEp9zKjDQByHSCMH-u5pt2art9cM3gmD32XeaAv=bnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 14 Dec 2018 14:05:56 -0600
From:   Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
To:     Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>
Cc:     Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
        "<netdev@...r.kernel.org>" <netdev@...r.kernel.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

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 08:33, Ilias Apalodimas
<ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
The idea was to do as much as we can in one irq and irqs disabled for
most of the time. But the numbers are more important, so I am fine
too.

Thanks.