On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:07:46 +1030
Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:33:31AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> >> OK. Well, Anthony wants qemu to be robust in this regard, so I am
> >> tempted to rework all the qemu drivers to handle arbitrary
Il 12/10/2012 00:37, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:33:31AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> OK. Well, Anthony wants qemu to be robust in this regard, so I am
>>> tempted to rework all the qemu drivers to handle arbitrary layouts.
>>> They
Il 12/10/2012 00:37, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:33:31AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
OK. Well, Anthony wants qemu to be robust in this regard, so I am
tempted to rework all the qemu drivers to handle arbitrary layouts.
They
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:07:46 +1030
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:33:31AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
OK. Well, Anthony wants qemu to be robust in this regard, so I am
tempted to rework all the qemu drivers
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:33:31AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> OK. Well, Anthony wants qemu to be robust in this regard, so I am
>> tempted to rework all the qemu drivers to handle arbitrary layouts.
>> They could use a good audit anyway.
>
> I agree here. Still
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:33:31AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
> > Il 09/10/2012 06:59, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
> >> Paolo Bonzini writes:
> >>> Il 05/10/2012 07:43, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
> That's good. But virtio_blk's scsi command is insoluble AFAICT. As I
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:33:31AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 09/10/2012 06:59, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 05/10/2012 07:43, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
That's good. But virtio_blk's scsi command is
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:33:31AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
OK. Well, Anthony wants qemu to be robust in this regard, so I am
tempted to rework all the qemu drivers to handle arbitrary layouts.
They could use a good audit anyway.
I agree here.
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> Il 09/10/2012 06:59, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
>> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>>> Il 05/10/2012 07:43, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
That's good. But virtio_blk's scsi command is insoluble AFAICT. As I
said to Anthony, the best rules are "always" and "never", so I'd
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 09/10/2012 06:59, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 05/10/2012 07:43, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
That's good. But virtio_blk's scsi command is insoluble AFAICT. As I
said to Anthony, the best rules are always
Il 09/10/2012 06:59, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>> Il 05/10/2012 07:43, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
>>> That's good. But virtio_blk's scsi command is insoluble AFAICT. As I
>>> said to Anthony, the best rules are "always" and "never", so I'd really
>>> rather not have to
Il 09/10/2012 06:59, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 05/10/2012 07:43, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
That's good. But virtio_blk's scsi command is insoluble AFAICT. As I
said to Anthony, the best rules are always and never, so I'd really
rather not have to
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> Il 05/10/2012 07:43, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
>> That's good. But virtio_blk's scsi command is insoluble AFAICT. As I
>> said to Anthony, the best rules are "always" and "never", so I'd really
>> rather not have to grandfather that in.
>
> It is, but we can add a rule
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 01:04:56PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Anthony Liguori writes:
> > Rusty Russell writes:
> >
> >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> >>
> >>> Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
> >>> for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
> >>> virtio net
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:14:17PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> > Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
> > for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
> > virtio net header inline with the data.
> > This can be done for free in case
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 04:14:17PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
virtio net header inline with the data.
This can be done for free in
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 01:04:56PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws writes:
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au writes:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
for virtio net small packets
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 05/10/2012 07:43, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
That's good. But virtio_blk's scsi command is insoluble AFAICT. As I
said to Anthony, the best rules are always and never, so I'd really
rather not have to grandfather that in.
It is, but we can add a
Il 05/10/2012 07:43, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
>> > struct virtio_scsi_req_cmd {
>> > // Read-only
>> > u8 lun[8];
>> > u64 id;
>> > u8 task_attr;
>> > u8 prio;
>> > u8 crn;
>> > char cdb[cdb_size];
>> > char dataout[];
>> >
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> Il 04/10/2012 14:51, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
>> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>>
>>> Il 04/10/2012 02:11, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
>> There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike "my
>> implemention isn't broken" feature bits. We could have an
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 04/10/2012 14:51, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 04/10/2012 02:11, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike my
implemention isn't broken feature bits. We
Il 05/10/2012 07:43, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
struct virtio_scsi_req_cmd {
// Read-only
u8 lun[8];
u64 id;
u8 task_attr;
u8 prio;
u8 crn;
char cdb[cdb_size];
char dataout[];
// Write-only part
Il 04/10/2012 09:44, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
> -In particular, no implementation should use the descriptor
> -boundaries to determine the size of any header in a request.[footnote:
> -The current qemu device implementations mistakenly insist that
> -the first descriptor cover the header in these
Il 04/10/2012 09:44, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
-In particular, no implementation should use the descriptor
-boundaries to determine the size of any header in a request.[footnote:
-The current qemu device implementations mistakenly insist that
-the first descriptor cover the header in these
Il 04/10/2012 14:51, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
> Paolo Bonzini writes:
>
>> Il 04/10/2012 02:11, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
> There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike "my
> implemention isn't broken" feature bits. We could have an infinite
> number of them, for
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> Il 04/10/2012 02:11, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
>> > > There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike "my
>> > > implemention isn't broken" feature bits. We could have an infinite
>> > > number of them, for each bug in each device.
>> >
>> > However, this
Anthony Liguori writes:
>> lguest fix is pending in my queue. lkvm and qemu are broken; lkvm isn't
>> ever going to be merged, so I'm not sure what its status is? But I'm
>> determined to fix qemu, and hence my torture patch to make sure this
>> doesn't creep in again.
>
> There are even more
Il 04/10/2012 02:11, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
> > > There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike "my
> > > implemention isn't broken" feature bits. We could have an infinite
> > > number of them, for each bug in each device.
> >
> > However, this bug affects (almost) all
Il 04/10/2012 02:11, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike my
implemention isn't broken feature bits. We could have an infinite
number of them, for each bug in each device.
However, this bug affects (almost) all implementations and
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws writes:
lguest fix is pending in my queue. lkvm and qemu are broken; lkvm isn't
ever going to be merged, so I'm not sure what its status is? But I'm
determined to fix qemu, and hence my torture patch to make sure this
doesn't creep in again.
There are
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 04/10/2012 02:11, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike my
implemention isn't broken feature bits. We could have an infinite
number of them, for each bug in each device.
However, this
Il 04/10/2012 14:51, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 04/10/2012 02:11, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike my
implemention isn't broken feature bits. We could have an infinite
number of them, for
Anthony Liguori writes:
> Rusty Russell writes:
>
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>>
>> There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike "my
>> implemention isn't broken" feature bits. We could have an infinite
>> number of them, for each bug in each device.
>>
>> So my plan
Rusty Russell writes:
> Anthony Liguori writes:
>> Rusty Russell writes:
>>
>>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>>>
Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
virtio net header inline with the data.
This can be
Anthony Liguori writes:
> Rusty Russell writes:
>
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>>
>>> Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
>>> for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
>>> virtio net header inline with the data.
>>> This can be done for free in case guest net
Rusty Russell writes:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
> There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike "my
> implemention isn't broken" feature bits. We could have an infinite
> number of them, for each bug in each device.
>
> So my plan was to tie this assumption to the new
Rusty Russell writes:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
>> Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
>> for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
>> virtio net header inline with the data.
>> This can be done for free in case guest net stack allocated
>> extra head room
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> Il 03/10/2012 08:44, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
>> There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike "my
>> implemention isn't broken" feature bits. We could have an infinite
>> number of them, for each bug in each device.
>
> However, this bug affects
Rusty Russell writes:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
>
>> Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
>> for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
>> virtio net header inline with the data.
>> This can be done for free in case guest net stack allocated
>> extra head room
Il 03/10/2012 08:44, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
> There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike "my
> implemention isn't broken" feature bits. We could have an infinite
> number of them, for each bug in each device.
However, this bug affects (almost) all implementations and
"Michael S. Tsirkin" writes:
> Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
> for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
> virtio net header inline with the data.
> This can be done for free in case guest net stack allocated
> extra head room for the packet, and I don't see
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
virtio net header inline with the data.
This can be done for free in case guest net stack allocated
extra head room for the packet, and I
Il 03/10/2012 08:44, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike my
implemention isn't broken feature bits. We could have an infinite
number of them, for each bug in each device.
However, this bug affects (almost) all implementations and (almost)
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au writes:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
virtio net header inline with the data.
This can be done for free in case guest net stack
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com writes:
Il 03/10/2012 08:44, Rusty Russell ha scritto:
There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike my
implemention isn't broken feature bits. We could have an infinite
number of them, for each bug in each device.
However, this bug
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au writes:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
virtio net header inline with the data.
This can be done for free in case guest net stack
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au writes:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike my
implemention isn't broken feature bits. We could have an infinite
number of them, for each bug in each device.
So my plan was to tie
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws writes:
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au writes:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
virtio net header inline with the data.
This can
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au writes:
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws writes:
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au writes:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws writes:
Rusty Russell ru...@rustcorp.com.au writes:
Michael S. Tsirkin m...@redhat.com writes:
There's a reason I haven't done this. I really, really dislike my
implemention isn't broken feature bits. We could have an infinite
number of them, for
Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
virtio net header inline with the data.
This can be done for free in case guest net stack allocated
extra head room for the packet, and I don't see
why would this have any downsides.
Even
Thinking about Sasha's patches, we can reduce ring usage
for virtio net small packets dramatically if we put
virtio net header inline with the data.
This can be done for free in case guest net stack allocated
extra head room for the packet, and I don't see
why would this have any downsides.
Even
52 matches
Mail list logo
