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  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:	Thu, 23 Jan 2014 16:23:57 +0200
From:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <>
To:	Tom Herbert <>
Cc:	Zhi Yong Wu <>,
	Ben Hutchings <>,
	Stefan Hajnoczi <>,
	Linux Netdev List <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>,
	"David S. Miller" <>,
	Zhi Yong Wu <>,
	Rusty Russell <>,
	Jason Wang <>
Subject: Re: Fwd: [RFC PATCH net-next 0/3] virtio_net: add aRFS support

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 10:00:37AM -0800, Tom Herbert wrote:
> >> 1. The aRFS interface for the guest to specify which virtual queue to
> >> receive a packet on is fairly straight forward.
> >> 2. To hook into RFS, we need to match the virtual queue to the real
> >> CPU it will processed on, and then program the RFS table for that flow
> >> and CPU.
> >> 3. NIC aRFS keys off the RFS tables so it can program the HW with the
> >> correct queue for the CPU.
> > Does anyone have time to make one conclusion for this discussion? in
> > particular, how will rx packet be steered up the stack from guest
> > virtio_net driver, virtio_net NIC, vhost_net, tun driver, host network
> > stack, to physical NIC with more details?
> > What is the role of each path units? otherwise this discussion wont
> > get any meanful result, which is not what we expect.
> >
> Working code outweighs theoretical discussion :-).

So far all that was posted was an untested patchset.
Zhi Yong Wu did this intentionally to get early feedback, so
it's not surprising we got a theoretical discussion
as opposed to working code out of this.

> I think you started
> on a good track with original patches, and I believe the tun path
> should work pretty well (some performance numbers would still be good
> to validate).

Yes, merging performance-oriented patches without any
performance numbers to show for it is strange.

> Seems like there's enough hooks in the virtio_net path
> to implement something meaningful and maybe get some numbers (maybe
> ignore NIC aRFS in the first pass).
> Tom
> >>
> >>> Stefan
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Zhi Yong Wu
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists