linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] virtio-ring: Allocate indirect buffers from cache when possible

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:	Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:46:19 +0200
From:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:	rusty@...tcorp.com.au, 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

On 08/29/2012 08:12 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> > > What is a good default for net? I guess max sg?
>> > 
>> > I think that it depends on the workload. I'd say we should keep the default to 0
>> > (disabled) unless we can have a good way to adjust it to the load.
> For *all* drivers?
> 
> Then it is mostly useless. No one has the time to tweak module
> parameters in real life.
> 
> For virtio-net, 16+1 is not too much and ensures we always
> use the cache.
> 
> If that works better than 0 I would say run with 17.

I was being extra-cautious with leaving it disabled until specifically enabled
because I assumed that this would be one of the first comments I'll get if it
was enabled by default :)

If you're comfortable with setting it to a sane default like 17, I'm perfectly
fine with that as well.


Thanks,
Sasha

--
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/