linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net v2] virtio-net: enable all napis before scheduling refill work

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8e69a404-18bf-4c91-a6c7-59d5ae831591@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2025 12:58:01 +0100
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
 Bui Quang Minh <minhquangbui99@...il.com>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
 Xuan Zhuo <xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com>, Eugenio Pérez
 <eperezma@...hat.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>,
 "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
 Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
 Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
 Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
 John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
 Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net v2] virtio-net: enable all napis before scheduling
 refill work

On 12/21/25 2:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 12:03:29PM +0700, Bui Quang Minh wrote:
>> On 12/17/25 09:58, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 12:23 AM Bui Quang Minh
>>> <minhquangbui99@...il.com> wrote:
>>>> I think we can unconditionally schedule the delayed refill after
>>>> enabling all the RX NAPIs (don't check the boolean schedule_refill
>>>> anymore) to ensure that we will have refill work. We can still keep the
>>>> try_fill_recv here to fill the receive buffer earlier in normal case.
>>>> What do you think?
>>> Or we can have a reill_pending
>>
>> Okay, let me implement this in the next version.
>>
>>> but basically I think we need something
>>> that is much more simple. That is, using a per rq work instead of a
>>> global one?
>>
>> I think we can leave this in a net-next patch later.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Quang Minh
> 
> i am not sure per rq is not simpler than this pile of tricks.
FWIW, I agree with Michael: the diffstat of the current patch is quite
scaring, I don't think a per RQ work would be significantly larger, but
should be significantly simpler to review and maintain.

I suggest doing directly the per RQ work implementation.

Thanks!

Paolo