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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 08:44:33 -0700 From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com> To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <jbrouer@...hat.com>, Maciej Fijalkowski <maciej.fijalkowski@...el.com> Cc: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>, alardam@...il.com, magnus.karlsson@...el.com, bjorn.topel@...el.com, andrii.nakryiko@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, hawk@...nel.org, jonathan.lemon@...il.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, maciejromanfijalkowski@...il.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, Marek Majtyka <marekx.majtyka@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 bpf 1/5] net: ethtool: add xdp properties flag set On 12/9/20 4:52 AM, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > But I have redesigned the ndo_xdp_xmit call to take a bulk of packets > (up-to 16) so it should not be a problem to solve this by sharing > TX-queue and talking a lock per 16 packets. I still recommend that, > for fallback case, you allocated a number a TX-queue and distribute > this across CPUs to avoid hitting a congested lock (above measurements > are the optimal non-congested atomic lock operation) I have been meaning to ask you why 16 for the XDP batching? If the netdev budget is 64, why not something higher like 32 or 64?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists