netdev - Re: [net-next rfc 3/3] tuntap: increase the max queues to 16

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: <CAPshTChc_wC1=VNNPHUpjf+P9qRn43MA7YADngL5_Lofqs3rhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:16:13 -0700
From:	Jerry Chu <hkchu@...gle.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, mst@...hat.com,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [net-next rfc 3/3] tuntap: increase the max queues to 16

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 13:40 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> Since we've reduce the size of tun_struct and use flex array to allocate netdev
>> queues, it's safe for us to increase the limit of queues in tuntap.
>
> Its already safe to increase max queues to 16, without your patches 1 &
> 2

How about 32? Will kmem size be an issue?

As others have pointed out it's best to allocate one queue per CPU
(virtual or real)
and > 16 CPU machines are very common. (I only asked for 16 initially
out of concern
for kmem size.)

Thanks,

Jerry

>
>
>
--
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