netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 00/14] mlxsw: Shared buffer improvements

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, 23 Apr 2019 05:26:06 +0000
From:   Ido Schimmel <idosch@...lanox.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
CC:     "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...lanox.com>,
        Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>,
        Alex Kushnarov <alexanderk@...lanox.com>,
        mlxsw <mlxsw@...lanox.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 00/14] mlxsw: Shared buffer improvements

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 02:17:39PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> Out of curiosity - are you guys considering adding CPU flavour ports,
> or is there a good reason not to have it exposed?

Yes, we are considering that. In fact, Alexander (Cc-ed) just asked me if
it is possible to monitor the occupancy in the egress CPU pool. This is
impossible without exposing the CPU port and it would have saved us a
lot of time while debugging these issues.

Do you need this functionality for nfp as well? If so, do you have any
thoughts about it? My thinking is that it would be a devlink port
without a backing netdev.