netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] net: generalize skb freeing deferral to per-cpu lists

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: <20220422101045.352eb086@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:10:45 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
        "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: generalize skb freeing deferral to
 per-cpu lists

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 09:50:33 -0700 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> The thing is that with a typical number of RX queues (typically 16 or
> 32 queues on a 100Gbit NIC),
> there is enough sharding for this spinlock to be a non-issue.
> 
> Also, we could quite easily add some batching in a future patch, for
> the cases where the number of RX queues
> is too small.
> 
> (Each cpu could hold up to 8 or 16 skbs in a per-cpu cache, before
> giving them back to alloc_cpu(s))

I was wondering if we want to keep the per-socket queue for the
batching but you're right, per CPU batch is better anyway if needed.