linux-kernel - Re: virtio-blk: should num_vqs be limited by num_possible

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: <20190315134112.7d63348c.cohuck@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:41:12 +0100
From:   Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>, mst@...hat.com,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: virtio-blk: should num_vqs be limited by num_possible_cpus()?

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:50:11 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:

> Or something like I proposed several years ago? 
> https://do-db2.lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/25/169
> 
> Btw, for virtio-net, I think we actually want to go for having a maximum 
> number of supported queues like what hardware did. This would be useful 
> for e.g cpu hotplug or XDP (requires per cpu TX queue). But the current 
> vector allocation doesn't support this which will results all virtqueues 
> to share a single vector. We may indeed need more flexible policy here.

I think it should be possible for the driver to give the transport
hints how to set up their queues/interrupt structures. (The driver
probably knows best about its requirements.) Perhaps whether a queue is
high or low frequency, or whether it should be low latency, or even
whether two queues could share a notification mechanism without
drawbacks. It's up to the transport to make use of that information, if
possible.