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:   Wed, 25 Jul 2018 01:46:38 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.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 06:31:54PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
> 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/

Yea. Why does GCE do it btw?

-- 
MST