netdev - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus

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

Message-ID: <49D4D301.2090209@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:00:17 +0300
From:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC:	Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, anthony@...emonkey.ws,
	andi@...stfloor.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agraf@...e.de,
	pmullaney@...ell.com, pmorreale@...ell.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus

Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 04:07:09PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
>> I think Rusty did mean a UP guest, and without schedule-and-forget.
>>     
>
> Going off on a tangent here, I don't really think it should matter
> whether we're UP or SMP.  The ideal state is where we have the
> same number of (virtual) TX queues as there are cores in the guest.
> On the host side we need the backend to run at least on a core
> that shares cache with the corresponding guest queue/core.  If
> that happens to be the same core as the guest core then it should
> work as well.
>
> IOW we should optimise it as if the host were UP.
>   

Good point - if we rely on having excess cores in the host, large guest 
scalability will drop.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html