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  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, 30 Jun 2020 13:08:01 -0700
From:   Jonathan Lemon <>
To:     Maxim Mikityanskiy <>
Cc:     "Samudrala, Sridhar" <>,
        Amritha Nambiar <>,
        Kiran Patil <>,
        Alexander Duyck <>,
        Eric Dumazet <>,
        Tom Herbert <>,
        "" <>
Subject: Re: ADQ - comparison to aRFS, clarifications on NAPI ID, binding
 with busy-polling

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 12:48:06PM +0000, Maxim Mikityanskiy wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your reply! It was really helpful. I have a few 
> comments, please see below.
> On 2020-06-24 23:21, Samudrala, Sridhar wrote:
> > ADQ also provides 2 levels of filtering compared to aRFS+XPS. The first
> > level of filtering selects a queue-set associated with the application
> > and the second level filter or RSS will select a queue within that queue
> > set associated with an app thread.
> This difference looks important. So, ADQ reserves a dedicated set of 
> queues solely for the application use.

I wanted to break this out as it looks like the most interesting part.
There are several use cases where the application needs to have its
packets arrive on a specific queue (or queue set): AF_XDP, and other
zero-copy work. 

Having the app bind to a napi_id doesn't seem to provide the same

> Ethtool RSS context API (look for "context" in man ethtool) seems more 
> appropriate for the RX side for this purpose.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists