netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] virtio_net: remove send completion interrupts and avoid TX queue overrun through packet drop

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]

Date:	Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:39:37 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.hengli.com.au>, davem@...emloft.net,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] virtio_net: remove send completion interrupts and
 avoid TX queue overrun through packet drop

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:46:49AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:36:50 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:03:07AM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 18:41 -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > > > > > +       /* Drop packet instead of stop queue for better
> > > > performance
> > > > > */
> > > > > 
> > > > > I would like to see some justification as to why this is the right
> > > > > way to go and not just papering over the real problem. 
> > > > 
> > > > Fair. KVM guest virtio_net TX queue stop/restart is pretty expensive,
> > > > which involves:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. Guest enable callback: one memory barrier, interrupt flag set
> > > 
> > > Missed this cost: for history reason, it also involves a guest exit from
> > > I/O write (PCI_QUEUE_NOTIFY).
> > 
> > OK, after some research, it looks like the reason was the tx timer that
> > qemu used to use. So the hack of avoiding the add_buf call will
> > avoid this kick and so break these hosts.
> > I guess we can add a feature bit to detect a new host
> > and so avoid the kick. We are running low on feature bits
> > unfortunately, but just fo testing, could you quantify the difference
> > that this makes using the following patch:
> 
> Performance would suffer for those ancient qemus if we didn't do this,
> but it wouldn't be fatal to them.
> 
> I think we should just remove it; the standard certainly doesn't mention
> it.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rusty.

I agree here. Anthony, agree?

-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html