netdev - Re: [net-next RFC PATCH 5/5] virtio-net: flow director support

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:	Tue, 06 Dec 2011 07:42:54 -0800
From:	Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>
To:	Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...il.com>
CC:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, krkumar2@...ibm.com,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, mst@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	levinsasha928@...il.com, bhutchings@...arflare.com
Subject: Re: [net-next RFC PATCH 5/5] virtio-net: flow director support

On 12/6/2011 5:15 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jason Wang<jasowang@...hat.com>  wrote:
>> On 12/06/2011 05:18 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 6:33 AM, Jason Wang<jasowang@...hat.com>    wrote:
>>>> On 12/05/2011 06:55 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Jason Wang<jasowang@...hat.com>
>>>>>   wrote:
>>> The vcpus are just threads and may not be bound to physical CPUs, so
>>> what is the big picture here?  Is the guest even in the position to
>>> set the best queue mappings today?
>>
>> Not sure it could publish the best mapping but the idea is to make sure the
>> packets of a flow were handled by the same guest vcpu and may be the same
>> vhost thread in order to eliminate the packet reordering and lock
>> contention. But this assumption does not take the bouncing of vhost or vcpu
>> threads which would also affect the result.
> Okay, this is why I'd like to know what the big picture here is.  What
> solution are you proposing?  How are we going to have everything from
> guest application, guest kernel, host threads, and host NIC driver
> play along so we get the right steering up the entire stack.  I think
> there needs to be an answer to that before changing virtio-net to add
> any steering mechanism.
>
>
Yes. Also the current model of  a vhost thread per VM's interface 
doesn't help with packet steering
all the way from the guest to the host physical NIC.

I think we need to have vhost thread(s) per-CPU that can handle packets 
to/from physical NIC's
TX/RX queues. Currently we have a single vhost thread for a VM's i/f 
that handles all the packets from
various flows coming from a multi-queue physical NIC.

Thanks
Sridhar

--
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