| 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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:19:04 +0930 From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> Cc: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avi@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] virtio-ring: Allocate indirect buffers from cache when possible "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> writes: > On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:27:23PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> writes: >> > Yes without checksum net core always linearizes packets, so yes it is >> > screwed. >> > For -net, skb always allocates space for 17 frags + linear part so >> > it seems sane to do same in virtio core, and allocate, for -net, >> > up to max_frags + 1 from cache. >> > We can adjust it: no _SG -> 2 otherwise 18. >> >> But I thought it used individual buffers these days? > > Yes for receive, no for transmit. That's probably why > we should have the threshold per vq, not per device, BTW. Can someone actually run with my histogram patch and see what the real numbers are? I'm not convinced that the ideal 17-buffer case actually happens as much as we think. And if it's not happening with this netperf test, we're testing the wrong thing. Thanks, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists