linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] virtio: add functions for piecewise addition of buffers

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: <20121218150626.GC27400@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 18 Dec 2012 17:06:26 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	gaowanlong@...fujitsu.com, hutao@...fujitsu.com,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
	asias@...hat.com, stefanha@...hat.com, nab@...ux-iscsi.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] virtio: add functions for piecewise addition of
 buffers

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 03:32:15PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 18/12/2012 14:59, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> >>> Can't we track state internally to the virtqueue? Exposing it
> >>> seems to buy us nothing since you can't call add_buf between
> >>> start and end anyway.
> >> 
> >> I wanted to keep the state for these functions separate from the
> >> rest. I don't think it makes much sense to move it to struct
> >> virtqueue unless virtqueue_add_buf is converted to use the new API
> >> (doesn't make much sense, could even be a tad slower).
> > 
> > Why would it be slower?
> 
> virtqueue_add_buf could be slower if it used the new API.  That's
> because of the overhead of writing and reading from struct
> virtqueue_buf, instead of using variables in registers.

Yes but we'll get rid of virtqueue_buf.

> >> On the other hand moving it there would eliminate the dependency
> >> on virtio_ring.h.  Rusty, what do you think?
> >> 
> >>> And idea: in practice virtio scsi seems to always call
> >>> sg_init_one, no? So how about we pass in void* or something and
> >>> avoid using sg and count? This would make it useful for -net
> >>> BTW.
> >> 
> >> It also passes the scatterlist from the LLD.  It calls sg_init_one
> >> for the request/response headers.
> > 
> > Try adding a _single variant. You might see unrolling a loop gives
> > more of a benefit than this whole optimization.
> 
> Makes sense, I'll try.  However, note that I *do* need the
> infrastructure in this patch because virtio-scsi could never use a
> hypothetical virtqueue_add_buf_single; requests always have at least 2
> buffers for the headers.
> 
> However I could add virtqueue_add_sg_single and use it for those
> headers.

Right.

>  The I/O buffer can keep using virtqueue_add_sg.
> 
> Paolo
--
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/