Plus the driver and sched uses really only need of few bits of crap random
number. Probably simple BSD random (32 bits)
is more than enough
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:19:28PM -0400, Robert Sanford wrote:
> > Yes, applications have many choice
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 06:19:28PM -0400, Robert Sanford wrote:
> Yes, applications have many choices for PRNGs. But, we still need one
> internally for the following libs: PMDs (e1000, fm10k, i40e, ixgbe, virtio,
> xenvirt), sched, and timer.
>
They can be updated to use the apropriate rng from a
Yes, applications have many choices for PRNGs. But, we still need one
internally for the following libs: PMDs (e1000, fm10k, i40e, ixgbe, virtio,
xenvirt), sched, and timer.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:03 PM, Stephen Hemminger <
stephen at networkplumber.org> wrote:
> I would argue remove rte_rand
if some one needs PRNG, th GNU scientific library has lots of them
https://www.gnu.org/software/gsl/manual/html_node/Random-number-generator-algorithms.html
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Hall wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 05:03:02PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > I would argue
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 05:03:02PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> I would argue remove rte_rand from DPDK.
+1
To paraphrase Donald Knuth, "Random numbers should not be generated [using a
function coded] at random."
It'd be better to fix libc, or considering that has a slow dev cycle and
pla
I would argue remove rte_rand from DPDK.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Sanford, Robert
wrote:
> Never mind ... I cancel the previous suggestion. After further reading on
> RNGs, I believe we should abandon the use of lrand48() and implement our
> own RNG based on the so-called KISS family of
Please do this work upstream in glibc rather than in the corner case of
DPDK.
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:38 AM, Sanford, Robert
wrote:
> Never mind ... I cancel the previous suggestion. After further reading on
> RNGs, I believe we should abandon the use of lrand48() and implement our
> own RNG
Never mind ... I cancel the previous suggestion. After further reading on
RNGs, I believe we should abandon the use of lrand48() and implement our
own RNG based on the so-called KISS family of RNGs originally proposed by
the late George Marsaglia. In his excellent paper, "Good Practice in
(Pseudo)
The implementation of rte_rand() returns only 62 bits of
pseudo-randomness, because the underlying calls to lrand48()
"return non-negative long integers uniformly distributed
between 0 and 2^31."
We have written a potential fix, but before we spend more
time testing and refining it, I wanted to c
9 matches
Mail list logo
