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: <CAGF4SLgDk+48aLKHhA_ZgRc6D30tGdnB89b5m5bZKwzyoDb0dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 4 Nov 2018 22:28:34 -0500
From:   Vitaly Mayatskih <v.mayatskih@...il.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] vhost: add per-vq worker thread

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:53 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:

> I wonder whether or not it's better to allow the device to specific the
> worker here instead of forcing a per vq worker model. Then we can keep
> the behavior of exist implementation and do optimization on top?

I was thinking about that too, but for the sake of simplicity it
sounds valid that if the user wanted 8 parallel queues for the disk,
they better be parallel, i.e. worker per queue. The rest of disks that
don't need high-performance, can have 1 queue specified.

-- 
wbr, Vitaly

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ