Re: [PATCH net] virtio-net: reject small vring sizes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 10:04:56AM +0000, Alvaro Karsz wrote:
> > > So, what do you think, we should fix virtio-net to work with smaller rings? we should fail probe?
> > >
> > > I think that since this never came up until now, there is no big demand to such small rings.
> > 
> > The worry is that once we start failing probe there's just a tiny chance
> > hosts begin to rely on us failing probe then we won't be able to fix it.
> > So it depends on the size of the patch I think. So far it seems small enough
> > that wasting code on failing probe isn't worth it.
> > 
> I see your point.
> Regardless, we'll need to fail probe in some cases.
> ring size of 1 for example (if I'm not mistaken)

Hmm. We can make it work if we increase hard header size, then
there will always be room for vnet header.

> control vq even needs a bigger ring.

Why does it?

> Maybe we can fix virtnet to allow smaller rings + fail probe in some cases, all in the same patch/patchset.

If we can't make it work then yes.


Virtualization mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux