netdev - Re: Network performance with small packets

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]

Date:	Tue, 1 Feb 2011 23:41:14 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, steved@...ibm.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: Network performance with small packets

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 01:28:45PM -0800, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 23:21 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > Confused. We compare capacity to skb frags, no?
> > That's sg I think ...
> 
> Current guest kernel use indirect buffers, num_free returns how many
> available descriptors not skb frags. So it's wrong here.
> 
> Shirley

I see. Good point. In other words when we complete the buffer
it was indirect, but when we add a new one we
can not allocate indirect so we consume.
And then we start the queue and add will fail.
I guess we need some kind of API to figure out
whether the buf we complete was indirect?

Another failure mode is when skb_xmit_done
wakes the queue: it might be too early, there
might not be space for the next packet in the vq yet.

A solution might be to keep some kind of pool
around for indirect, we wanted to do it for block anyway ...

-- 
MST
--
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