linux-kernel - Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v9 2/5] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_BALLOON

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <59112D67.9080405@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 09 May 2017 10:45:59 +0800
From:   Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@...el.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:     "virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org" <virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "qemu-devel@...gnu.org" <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
        "virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "david@...hat.com" <david@...hat.com>,
        "Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
        "cornelia.huck@...ibm.com" <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
        "akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "mgorman@...hsingularity.net" <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        "aarcange@...hat.com" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        "amit.shah@...hat.com" <amit.shah@...hat.com>,
        "pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
        "liliang.opensource@...il.com" <liliang.opensource@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v9 2/5] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_BALLOON_CHUNKS

On 05/09/2017 01:40 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 04:19:28AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
>> On 05/06/2017 06:26 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 02:31:49PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
>>>> On 04/27/2017 07:20 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:03:34AM +0000, Wang, Wei W wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Michael, could you please give some feedback?
>>>>> I'm sorry, I'm not sure feedback on what you are requesting.
>>>> Oh, just some trivial things (e.g. use a field in the header,
>>>> hdr->chunks to indicate the number of chunks in the payload) that
>>>> wasn't confirmed.
>>>>
>>>> I will prepare the new version with fixing the agreed issues, and we
>>>> can continue to discuss those parts if you still find them improper.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The interface looks reasonable now, even though there's a way to
>>>>> make it even simpler if we can limit chunk size to 2G (in fact 4G -
>>>>> 1). Do you think we can live with this limitation?
>>>> Yes, I think we can. So, is it good to change to use the previous
>>>> 64-bit chunk format (52-bit base + 12-bit size)?
>>> This isn't what I meant. virtio ring has descriptors with a 64 bit address and 32 bit
>>> size.
>>>
>>> If size < 4g is not a significant limitation, why not just use that to pass
>>> address/size in a standard s/g list, possibly using INDIRECT?
>> OK, I see your point, thanks. Post the two options here for an analysis:
>> Option1 (what we have now):
>> struct virtio_balloon_page_chunk {
>>          __le64 chunk_num;
>>          struct virtio_balloon_page_chunk_entry entry[];
>> };
>> Option2:
>> struct virtio_balloon_page_chunk {
>>          __le64 chunk_num;
>>          struct scatterlist entry[];
>> };
> This isn't what I meant really :) I meant vring_desc.

OK. Repost the code change:

Option2:
struct virtio_balloon_page_chunk {
         __le64 chunk_num;
         struct ving_desc entry[];
};

We pre-allocate a table of desc, and each desc is used to hold a chunk.

In that case, the virtqueue_add() function, which deals with sg, is not
usable for us. We may need to add a new one,
virtqueue_add_indirect_desc(),
to add a pre-allocated indirect descriptor table to vring.


>
>> I don't have an issue to change it to Option2, but I would prefer Option1,
>> because I think there is no be obvious difference between the two options,
>> while Option1 appears to have little advantages here:
>> 1) "struct virtio_balloon_page_chunk_entry" has smaller size than
>> "struct scatterlist", so the same size of allocated page chunk buffer
>> can hold more entry[] using Option1;
>> 2) INDIRECT needs on demand kmalloc();
> Within alloc_indirect?  We can fix that with a separate patch.
>
>
>> 3) no 4G size limit;
> Do you see lots of >=4g chunks in practice?
It wouldn't be much in practice, but we still need the extra code to
handle the case - break larger chunks into less-than 4g ones.

Best,
Wei