linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] vhost: TX used buffer guest signal accumulation

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: <1288279477.11251.5.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:24:37 -0700
From:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] vhost: TX used buffer guest signal accumulation

On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 07:20 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> My concern is this can delay signalling for unlimited time.
> Could you pls test this with guests that do not have
> 2b5bbe3b8bee8b38bdc27dd9c0270829b6eb7eeb
> b0c39dbdc204006ef3558a66716ff09797619778
> that is 2.6.31 and older?

I will test it out.

> This seems to be slighltly out of spec, even though
> for TX, signals are less important.
> Two ideas:
> 1. How about writing out used, just delaying the signal?
>    This way we don't have to queue separately.
> 2. How about flushing out queued stuff before we exit
>    the handle_tx loop? That would address most of
>    the spec issue. 

I will modify the patch to test out the performance for both 1 & 2
approaches.

Thanks
Shirley



--
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/