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]

Message-ID: <20120906084526.GE17656@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 6 Sep 2012 11:45:26 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>,
	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 Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 05:27:23PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> writes:
> > Yes without checksum net core always linearizes packets, so yes it is
> > screwed.
> > For -net, skb always allocates space for 17 frags + linear part so
> > it seems sane to do same in virtio core, and allocate, for -net,
> > up to max_frags + 1 from cache.
> > We can adjust it: no _SG -> 2 otherwise 18.
> 
> But I thought it used individual buffers these days?

Yes for receive, no for transmit. That's probably why
we should have the threshold per vq, not per device, BTW.

-- 
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/