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: <20111220111512.GA3913@redhat.com>
Date:	Tue, 20 Dec 2011 13:15:12 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
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

On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 01:52:35PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> 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.

Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>

--
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