From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2]: Remote softirq invocation infrastructure. Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:57:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20080920.235727.247411045.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20080920.125949.193703969.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dwalker@mvista.com, arjan@infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, jens.axboe@oracle.com, steffen.klassert@secunet.com To: herbert@gondor.apana.org.au Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:59948 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750997AbYIUG5j (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 Sep 2008 02:57:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Herbert Xu Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 15:05:45 +0900 > Unfortunately doing this with IPsec is going to be non-trivial > since we still want to maintain packet ordering inside IPsec > and you don't get the inner flow information until you decrypt > the packet. Steffen has mechanisms by which to deal with this in his patches. > So if we want to process IPsec packets in parallel it's best to > implement that from within the crypto API where we can queue the > result in order to ensure proper ordering. That's another option, of course. And crypto could use remote softirqs even for that :-) > Of course, we need to balance any effort spent on this with the > likelihood that hardware improvements will soon make this obsolete > (for IPsec anyway). True, but old hardware will always exist. A lot of very reasonable machines out there will benefit from software RX flow seperation.