linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] virtio: support layout with avail ring before idx

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]

Message-ID: <20100604114205.GA22599@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:42:05 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	qemu-devel@...gnu.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] virtio: support layout with avail ring before idx

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 08:46:49PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 08:05:43 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 12:04:57PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:17:12 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > This adds an (unused) option to put available ring before control (avail
> > > > index, flags), and adds padding between index and flags. This avoids
> > > > cache line sharing between control and ring, and also makes it possible
> > > > to extend avail control without incurring extra cache misses.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> > > 
> > > No no no no.  254?  You're trying to Morton me![1]
> > 
> > Hmm, I wonder what will we do if we want a 3rd field on
> > a separate chacheline. But ok.
> > 
> > > How's this (untested):
> > 
> > I think we also want to put flags there as well,
> > they are used on interrupt path, together with last used index.
> 
> I'm uncomfortable with moving a field.
> 
> We haven't done that before and I wonder what will break with old code.

With e.g. my patch, We only do this conditionally when bit is negotitated.

> Should we instead just abandon the flags field and use last_used only?
> Or, more radically, put flags == last_used when the feature is on?
> 
> Thoughts?
> Rusty.

Hmm, e.g. with TX and virtio net, we almost never want interrupts,
whatever the index value.

-- 
MST
--
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/