linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] vhost: add per-vq worker thread

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]

Date:   Tue, 6 Nov 2018 10:48:51 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Vitaly Mayatskih <v.mayatskih@...il.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 2018/11/5 上午11:28, Vitaly Mayatskih wrote:
> 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.
>

If you allow device to specify the worker itself, you can do any kinds 
of mapping bettween work and worker kthread I think. The advantage of 
doing this is that you can keep the vhost-net untouched. This makes 
things a little bit easier and proving two kthreads is better than one 
for -net workload is probably not as easy as it looks. We may get boost 
in some cases but degradation for the rest.


Thanks