netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: force_napi

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, 24 Jul 2018 18:31:54 -0400
From:   Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     caleb.raitto@...il.com, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Caleb Raitto <caraitto@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: force_napi_tx module param.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 6:23 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 04:52:53PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> > >From the above linked patch, I understand that there are yet
> > other special cases in production, such as a hard cap on #tx queues to
> > 32 regardless of number of vcpus.
>
> I don't think upstream kernels have this limit - we can
> now use vmalloc for higher number of queues.

Yes. that patch* mentioned it as a google compute engine imposed
limit. It is exactly such cloud provider imposed rules that I'm
concerned about working around in upstream drivers.

* for reference, I mean https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/725249/