netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 03/13] vhost: batching fetches

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: <6c2e6cc7-27c5-445b-f252-0356ff8a83f3@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:40:17 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Eugenio Pérez <eperezma@...hat.com>,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 03/13] vhost: batching fetches


On 2020/6/4 下午4:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 03:27:39PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2020/6/2 下午9:06, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> With this patch applied, new and old code perform identically.
>>>
>>> Lots of extra optimizations are now possible, e.g.
>>> we can fetch multiple heads with copy_from/to_user now.
>>> We can get rid of maintaining the log array.  Etc etc.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<mst@...hat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eugenio Pérez<eperezma@...hat.com>
>>> Link:https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200401183118.8334-4-eperezma@redhat.com
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin<mst@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/vhost/test.c  |  2 +-
>>>    drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>    drivers/vhost/vhost.h |  5 ++++-
>>>    3 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/test.c b/drivers/vhost/test.c
>>> index 9a3a09005e03..02806d6f84ef 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/vhost/test.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/test.c
>>> @@ -119,7 +119,7 @@ static int vhost_test_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *f)
>>>    	dev = &n->dev;
>>>    	vqs[VHOST_TEST_VQ] = &n->vqs[VHOST_TEST_VQ];
>>>    	n->vqs[VHOST_TEST_VQ].handle_kick = handle_vq_kick;
>>> -	vhost_dev_init(dev, vqs, VHOST_TEST_VQ_MAX, UIO_MAXIOV,
>>> +	vhost_dev_init(dev, vqs, VHOST_TEST_VQ_MAX, UIO_MAXIOV + 64,
>>>    		       VHOST_TEST_PKT_WEIGHT, VHOST_TEST_WEIGHT, NULL);
>>>    	f->private_data = n;
>>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
>>> index 8f9a07282625..aca2a5b0d078 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
>>> @@ -299,6 +299,7 @@ static void vhost_vq_reset(struct vhost_dev *dev,
>>>    {
>>>    	vq->num = 1;
>>>    	vq->ndescs = 0;
>>> +	vq->first_desc = 0;
>>>    	vq->desc = NULL;
>>>    	vq->avail = NULL;
>>>    	vq->used = NULL;
>>> @@ -367,6 +368,11 @@ static int vhost_worker(void *data)
>>>    	return 0;
>>>    }
>>> +static int vhost_vq_num_batch_descs(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
>>> +{
>>> +	return vq->max_descs - UIO_MAXIOV;
>>> +}
>> 1 descriptor does not mean 1 iov, e.g userspace may pass several 1 byte
>> length memory regions for us to translate.
>>
> Yes but I don't see the relevance. This tells us how many descriptors to
> batch, not how many IOVs.


Yes, but questions are:

- this introduce another obstacle to support more than 1K queue size
- if we support 1K queue size, does it mean we need to cache 1K 
descriptors, which seems a large stress on the cache

Thanks


>