netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] implement kthread based napi poll

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201003041744.zyxp5fx6lbyumvfl@ast-mbp>
Date:   Fri, 2 Oct 2020 21:17:44 -0700
From:   Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, Wei Wang <weiwan@...gle.com>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@....name>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/5] implement kthread based napi poll

On Sat, Oct 03, 2020 at 05:54:38AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
> Sure, a WQ is already giving nice results on appliances, because there
> you do not need strong isolation.
> Would a kthread approach also work well on appliances ? Probably...

Right. I think we're on the same page.
The only reason I'm bringing up multiple co-existing approaches now is to make
sure they are designed in from the start instead of as afterthought. Two
implementations already exist, but it doesn't look like that they can co-exist
in the kernel. Like this NAPI_STATE_THREADED bit in this patch set. Should we
burn that bit for kthread approach and another bit for workqueue based? 
I don't know. As the user of the feature I would be happy with any mechanism as
long as I can flip between them in runtime :) Just like RPS and RFS.