netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] vsock/virtio: optimizations to increase the throughput

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: <20190722091434.tzf7lxw3tvrs5w5v@steredhat>
Date:   Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:14:34 +0200
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/5] vsock/virtio: optimizations to increase the
 throughput

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:08:35AM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:25PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > This series tries to increase the throughput of virtio-vsock with slight
> > changes.
> > While I was testing the v2 of this series I discovered an huge use of memory,
> > so I added patch 1 to mitigate this issue. I put it in this series in order
> > to better track the performance trends.
> > 
> > v4:
> > - rebased all patches on current master (conflicts is Patch 4)
> > - Patch 1: added Stefan's R-b
> > - Patch 3: removed lock when buf_alloc is written [David];
> >            moved this patch after "vsock/virtio: reduce credit update messages"
> >            to make it clearer
> > - Patch 4: vhost_exceeds_weight() is recently introduced, so I've solved some
> >            conflicts
> 
> Stefano: Do you want to continue experimenting before we merge this
> patch series?  The code looks functionally correct and the performance
> increases, so I'm happy for it to be merged.

I think we can merge this series.

I'll continue to do other experiments (e.g. removing TX workers, allocating
pages, etc.) but I think these changes are prerequisites for the other patches,
so we can merge them.

Thank you very much for the reviews!
Stefano