netdev - Re: [PATCH] macvtap: Fix macvtap_get

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: <20111207.135235.557498530764890254.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Wed, 07 Dec 2011 13:52:35 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	mst@...hat.com
Cc:	krkumar2@...ibm.com, jasowang@...hat.com, arnd@...db.de,
	levinsasha928@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] macvtap: Fix macvtap_get_queue to use rxhash first

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 18:10:02 +0200

> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 01:35:52AM -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Krishna Kumar2 <krkumar2@...ibm.com>
>> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 09:39:11 +0530
>> 
>> > Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote on 11/25/2011 08:51:57 AM:
>> >>
>> >> My description is not clear again :(
>> >> I mean the same vhost thead:
>> >>
>> >> vhost thread #0 transmits packets of flow A on processor M
>> >> ...
>> >> vhost thread #0 move to another process N and start to transmit packets
>> >> of flow A
>> > 
>> > Thanks for clarifying. Yes, binding vhosts to CPU's
>> > makes the incoming packet go to the same vhost each
>> > time. BTW, are you doing any binding and/or irqbalance
>> > when you run your tests? I am not running either at
>> > this time, but thought both might be useful.
>> 
>> So are we going with this patch or are we saying that vhost binding
>> is a requirement?
> 
> OK we didn't come to a conclusion so I would be inclined
> to merge this patch as is for 3.2, and revisit later.
> One question though: do these changes affect userspace
> in any way? For example, will this commit us to
> ensure that a single flow gets a unique hash even
> for strange configurations that transmit the same flow
> from multiple cpus?

Once you sort this out, reply with an Acked-by: for me, thanks.
--
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