netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 2/2] net: introduce budget

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: <20230330192050.1e057776@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2023 19:20:50 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To:     Jason Xing <kerneljasonxing@...il.com>
Cc:     jbrouer@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
        pabeni@...hat.com, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net,
        hawk@...nel.org, john.fastabend@...il.com,
        stephen@...workplumber.org, simon.horman@...igine.com,
        sinquersw@...il.com, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Jason Xing <kernelxing@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 2/2] net: introduce budget_squeeze to help
 us tune rx behavior

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 08:48:07 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 12:23 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 17:59:46 +0800 Jason Xing wrote:  
> > > I'm wondering for now if I can update and resend this patch to have a
> > > better monitor (actually we do need one) on this part since we have
> > > touched the net_rx_action() in the rps optimization patch series?
> > > Also, just like Jesper mentioned before, it can be considered as one
> > > 'fix' to a old problem but targetting to net-next is just fine. What
> > > do you think about it ?  
> >
> > Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say :(  
> 
> Previously this patch was not accepted because we do not want to touch
> softirqs (actually which is net_rx_action()). Since it is touched in
> the commit [1] in recent days, I would like to ask your permission:
> could I resend this patch to the mailing list? I hope we can get it
> merged.
> 
> This patch can be considered as a 'fix' to the old problem. It's
> beneficial and harmless, I think :)

The not touching part was about softirqs which is kernel/softirq.c,
this patch was rejected because it's not useful.