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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 23:53:53 +0930 From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> To: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@...hat.com> Cc: dlaor@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, Dor Laor <dor@...hat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] virtio: indirect ring entries (VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC) On Tue, 12 May 2009 02:40:38 am Mark McLoughlin wrote: > > Blocked from doing the simpler thing, we've decided to go with a layer > > of indirection. But the patch is simple and clean, so there's nothing > > fundamental to object to. > > Still have one FIXME in the patch worth looking at - at what point > should we use an indirect entry rather than consuming N entries? OK, I've applied these as is. I'm doing some virtio net benchmarking (under lguest); I'll see if I can get a reasonable figure. I don't think there's an obvious right answer; it depends how many more packets are coming as well as how many descriptors each will use. Thanks, Rusty. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists