netdev - Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] net: bonding: Use per-cpu rr_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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <CAHn8xcmT1nvOci_Cc0Oo49Gm9dab6B-b5B20nircCHu0jG8GRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jun 2021 09:54:25 +0200
From:   Jussi Maki <joamaki@...il.com>
To:     Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com>
Cc:     bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>, andy@...yhouse.net,
        vfalico@...il.com, andrii@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next 2/3] net: bonding: Use per-cpu rr_tx_counter

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 2:04 AM Jay Vosburgh <jay.vosburgh@...onical.com> wrote:
>
> Jussi Maki <joamaki@...il.com> wrote:
>
>         With the rr_tx_counter is per-cpu, each CPU is essentially doing
> its own round-robin logic, independently of other CPUs, so the resulting
> spread of transmitted packets may not be as evenly distributed (as
> multiple CPUs could select the same interface to transmit on
> approximately in lock-step).  I'm not sure if this could cause actual
> problems in practice, though, as particular flows shouldn't skip between
> CPUs (and thus rr_tx_counters) very often, and round-robin already
> shouldn't be the first choice if no packet reordering is a hard
> requirement.
>
>         I think this patch could be submitted against net-next
> independently of the rest of the series.

Yes this makes sense. I'll submit it separately against net-next today
and drop it off from this patchset.