linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] vhost: avoid large order allocations

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: <20140513151527.GA28517@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 13 May 2014 18:15:27 +0300
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Romain Francoise <romain@...bokech.com>
Cc:	Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
	cornelia.huck@...ibm.com, ddongch@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] vhost: avoid large order allocations

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 04:29:58PM +0200, Romain Francoise wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> writes:
> 
> > Please dont' do this, extra indirection hurts performance.
> > Instead, please change vhost_net_open and scsi to allocate the whole
> > structure with vmalloc if kmalloc fails, along the lines of
> > 74d332c13b2148ae934ea94dac1745ae92efe8e5
> 
> Back in January 2013, you didn't seem to think it was a good idea:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/23/492

Hmm true, and Dave thought the structure's too large.
I'll have to do some benchmarks to see what the effect
of Michael's patch is, performance-wise.
If it's too expensive I can pick up your patch, no need to
repost.

-- 
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/