netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] virtio: indirect ring entries (VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT

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: <200905122353.54424.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
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