linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2 tuntap: Increase the number of queues in tun.

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: <5481602E.1030508@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 05 Dec 2014 15:35:10 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:	Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net, dgibson@...hat.com,
	vfalico@...il.com, edumazet@...gle.com, vyasevic@...hat.com,
	hkchu@...gle.com, wuzhy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, xemul@...allels.com,
	therbert@...gle.com, bhutchings@...arflare.com, xii@...gle.com,
	stephen@...workplumber.org, jiri@...nulli.us,
	sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net-next 2/2 tuntap: Increase the number of queues
 in tun.


On 12/04/2014 06:20 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 03:03:34AM +0008, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>>> > >On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 12:49:37PM +0530, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
>>>> > >> Networking under kvm works best if we allocate a per-vCPU RX and TX
>>>> > >> queue in a virtual NIC. This requires a per-vCPU queue on the host
>>>> > >>side.
>>>> > >> It is now safe to increase the maximum number of queues.
>>>> > >> Preceding patche: 'net: allow large number of rx queues'
>>> > >
>>> > >s/patche/patch/
>>> > >
>>>> > >> made sure this won't cause failures due to high order memory
>>>> > >> allocations. Increase it to 256: this is the max number of vCPUs
>>>> > >> KVM supports.
>>>> > >> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>
>>>> > >> Reviewed-by: David Gibson <dgibson@...hat.com>
>>> > >
>>> > >Hmm it's kind of nasty that each tun device is now using x16 memory.
>>> > >Maybe we should look at using a flex array instead, and removing the
>>> > >limitation altogether (e.g. make it INT_MAX)?
>> > 
>> > But this only happens when IFF_MULTIQUEUE were used.
> I refer to this field:
>         struct tun_file __rcu   *tfiles[MAX_TAP_QUEUES];
> if we make MAX_TAP_QUEUES 256, this will use 4K bytes,
> apparently unconditionally.
>
>

How about just allocate one tfile if IFF_MULTIQUEUE were disabled?

--
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/