netdev - Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] virtio: support packed ring

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: <98d6bd4d-45e2-4207-e961-782f649e0139@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:47:29 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@...el.com>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, wexu@...hat.com,
        jfreimann@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH net-next v2 0/5] virtio: support packed
 ring



On 2018年09月13日 16:59, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>> If what you say is true then we should take a careful look
>> and not supporting these generic things with packed layout.
>> Once we do support them it will be too late and we won't
>> be able to get performance back.
> I think it's a good point that we don't need to support
> everything in packed ring (especially these which would
> hurt the performance), as the packed ring aims at high
> performance. I'm also wondering about the features. Is
> there any possibility that we won't support the out of
> order processing (at least not by default) in packed ring?
> If I didn't miss anything, the need to support out of order
> processing in packed ring will make the data structure
> inside the driver not cache friendly which is similar to
> the case of the descriptor table in the split ring (the
> difference is that, it only happens in driver now).

Out of order is not the only user, DMA is another one. We don't have 
used ring(len), so we need to maintain buffer length somewhere even for 
in order device. But if it's not too late, I second for a OUT_OF_ORDER 
feature. Starting from in order can have much simpler code in driver.

Thanks