lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 1/1] vhost: TX used buffer guest signal accumulation
    From
    Date
    On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 12:48 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
    > I mean in practice, you see a benefit from this patch?

    Yes, I tested it. It does benefit the performance.

    > > My concern here is whether checking only in set up would be
    > sufficient
    > > for security?
    >
    > It better be sufficient because the checks that put_user does
    > are not effictive when run from the kernel thread, anyway.
    >
    > > Would be there is a case guest could corrupt the ring
    > > later? If not, that's OK.
    >
    > You mean change the pointer after it's checked?
    > If you see such a case, please holler.

    I wonder about it, not a such case in mind.

    > To clarify: the combination of __put_user and separate
    > signalling is giving the same performance benefit as your
    > patch?

    Yes, it has similar performance, not I haven't finished all message
    sizes comparison yet.

    > I am mostly concerned with adding code that seems to help
    > speed for reasons we don't completely understand, because
    > then we might break the optimization easily without noticing.

    I don't think the patch I submited would break up anything. It just
    reduced the cost of per used buffer 3 put_user() calls and guest
    signaling from one to one to many to one.

    Thanks
    Shirley



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-11-04 06:41    [W:0.023 / U:0.232 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site