[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

*Subject*: **Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: Add equal-sized receive buffers feature**

*From*:**"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>***To*: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com>*Date*: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 10:23:29 -0500

On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 03:09:14PM +0000, Vitaly Mireyno wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > >Sent: Sunday, 1 December, 2019 23:44 > >To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com> > >Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; virtio-comment@lists.oasis- > >open.org > >Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] > >virtio-net: Add equal-sized receive buffers feature > > > >On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 08:07:55AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 01, 2019 at 10:22:17AM +0000, Vitaly Mireyno wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > >-----Original Message----- > >> > >From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > >> > >Sent: Wednesday, 27 November, 2019 15:51 > >> > >To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com> > >> > >Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; virtio-comment@lists.oasis- > >> > >open.org > >> > >Subject: Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: > >> > >[PATCH] > >> > >virtio-net: Add equal-sized receive buffers feature > >> > > > >> > >On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 05:27:31PM +0000, Vitaly Mireyno wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> > >> >From: virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > >> > >> ><virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org> On Behalf Of Michael S. > >> > >> >Tsirkin > >> > >> >Sent: Sunday, 24 November, 2019 17:30 > >> > >> >To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com> > >> > >> >Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; > >> > >> >virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org > >> > >> >Subject: [virtio-comment] Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: > >> > >> >[PATCH] > >> > >> >virtio- > >> > >> >net: Add equal-sized receive buffers feature > >> > >> > > >> > >> >On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 03:02:05PM +0000, Vitaly Mireyno wrote: > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> >-----Original Message----- > >> > >> >> >From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > >> > >> >> >Sent: Wednesday, 20 November, 2019 15:23 > >> > >> >> >To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com> > >> > >> >> >Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; > >> > >> >> >virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org > >> > >> >> >Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: > >> > >> >> >Add > >> > >> >> >equal- sized receive buffers feature > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 03:49:59PM +0000, Vitaly Mireyno wrote: > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- > >> > >> >> >> >From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > >> > >> >> >> >Sent: Monday, 11 November, 2019 17:05 > >> > >> >> >> >To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com> > >> > >> >> >> >Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; > >> > >> >> >> >virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org > >> > >> >> >> >Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: > >> > >> >> >> >Add > >> > >> >> >> >equal- sized receive buffers feature > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 01:58:51PM +0000, Vitaly Mireyno > >wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- > >> > >> >> >> >> >From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > >> > >> >> >> >> >Sent: Sunday, 10 November, 2019 17:35 > >> > >> >> >> >> >To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com> > >> > >> >> >> >> >Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; > >> > >> >> >> >> >virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org > >> > >> >> >> >> >Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio- > >net: > >> > >> >> >> >> >Add > >> > >> >> >> >> >equal- sized receive buffers feature > >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 02:13:14PM +0000, Vitaly Mireyno > >wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >From: virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > >> > >> >> >> >> >> ><virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org> On Behalf Of > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Michael > >> > >S. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Tsirkin > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Sent: Tuesday, 5 November, 2019 20:52 > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Cc: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com>; > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >virtio-comment@lists.oasis- open.org > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Subject: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio- > >net: > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Add equal-sized receive buffers feature > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >External Email > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >---------------------------------------------------- > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >----- > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >--- > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >--- > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >--- > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >--- > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >- On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 03:22:26PM +0800, Jason Wang > >wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> On 2019/11/1 äå12:09, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 10:46:55AM +0000, Vitaly > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Mireyno > >> > >> >wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > The feature is limited to receive buffers only. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > A driver decides on receive buffer length. The > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > only limitation is that this > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >length has to be the same for all receive virtqueue > >buffers. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > The driver configures receive buffer length to > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > the device during device > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >initialization, and the device reads it and may use > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >it for optimal > >> > >> >> >> >operation. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > No changes for transmit buffers. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > From: virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > <virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org> On > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Behalf Of Jason Wang > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Sent: Thursday, 31 October, 2019 12:15 > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > To: Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com>; > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > virtio-comment@lists.oasis-open.org > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Subject: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Add equal-sized receive buffers feature > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > On 2019/10/31 äå5:23, Vitaly Mireyno wrote: > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Some devices benefit from working with > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > receive buffers of a > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >predefined constant length. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Add a feature for drivers that allocate > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > equal-sized receive buffers, and > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >devices that benefit from predefined receive buffers > >length. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Vitaly Mireyno > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > <vmireyno@marvell.com> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > --- > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > content.tex | 29 > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > deletions(-) > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Is there any other networking device that has > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > this > >> > >feature? > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > diff --git a/content.tex b/content.tex index > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > b1ea9b9..c9e67c8 > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > 100644 > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > --- a/content.tex > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +++ b/content.tex > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > @@ -2811,6 +2811,10 @@ \subsection{Feature > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > bits}\label{sec:Device > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Types / Network Device / Feature bits > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > \item[VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_MAC_ADDR(23)] Set > >> > >MAC > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > address > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >through control > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > channel. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +\item[VIRTIO_NET_F_CONST_RXBUF_LEN(58)] > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > +Driver allocates all > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >receive buffers > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + of the same constant length. Device > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + benefits from working > >> > >> >> >> >with > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + receive buffers of equal length. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > + > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Problem is, I don't think linux will use this > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > for skbs since it breaks buffer accounting. This > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > is because it is important to make skbs as small > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > as you can. So even if you see "device would > >> > >> >> >> >benefit" > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > there is no way to balance this with the benefit to > >linux. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > How do you know which benefit is bigger? > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I guess the idea is e.g for Linux driver, it can > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> refuse this > >> > >feature. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >Okay. What uses it? > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > You also never explained how does device > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > benefit. My guess is this allows device to > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > calculate the # of descriptors to fetch that are needed > >for a packet. Right? > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Assuming this, I think a rough estimate should be > >enough. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > If device fetches too much it can discard extra, > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > if it does not fetch enough it can fetch extra. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Let us not forget that express packets are 256 > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > bytes so up to > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > 16 descriptors fit in a packet, there is no > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > benefit most of the time in knowing whether e.g. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > 1 or 2 descriptors are > >> > >> >needed. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > Let us not forget these are buffers, not descriptors. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I guess maybe the initial motivation is constant > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> descriptor > >> > >> >length. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >That conflicts with requirement framing is up to driver. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> I was using the wrong terminology. The feature is > >> > >> >> >> >> >> about constant > >> > >> >> >> >> >*descriptor* length. In other words, the value that > >> > >> >> >> >> >driver puts in Packed Virtqueue "Element Length" field (or > >'len' > >> > >> >> >> >> >field in the > >> > >> >> >'pvirtq_desc' > >> > >> >> >> >struct). > >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >OK so this conflicts with "2.6.4 Message Framing" which > >> > >> >> >> >> >requires that drivers can split buffers into as many > >> > >> >> >> >> >descriptors as > >> > >> >they like. > >> > >> >> >> >> >Right? > >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> Does it make more sense now, or you still see an > >> > >> >> >> >> >> issue with Linux > >> > >> >> >driver? > >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >I think there's an issue with the flexible framing > >> > >> >> >> >> >requirements and there's an issue with Linux driver. > >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >> The motivation is to allow the device to calculate > >> > >> >> >> >> >> the exact number of > >> > >> >> >> >> >descriptors to consume, before fetching the descriptors. > >> > >> >> >> >> >This is beneficial for devices for which overconsuming > >> > >> >> >> >> >or underconsuming descriptors come at a high cost. > >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >So I guess we can agree getting the # of descriptors > >> > >> >> >> >> >*exactly* right isn't all that important. Right? My > >> > >> >> >> >> >question is how does the driver balance the device versus > >Linux needs? > >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> >One idea is if we assume this is best effort, does not > >> > >> >> >> >> >have to be exact, then how about just having the device > >> > >> >> >> >> >assume descriptor sizes stay more or less constant and > >> > >> >> >> >> >use that to estimate the amount? If it under/over > >> > >> >> >> >> >estimates, things just go a bit > >> > >> >slower. > >> > >> >> >> >> >This way driver can adjust the sizes and device will > >> > >> >> >> >> >react automatically, with time. > >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> I see that "2.6.4 Message Framing" allows a full > >> > >> >> >> >> flexibility of descriptor lengths, and I presume it's > >> > >> >> >> >> applicable to Packet Virtqueues as well, though defined > >> > >> >> >> >> under Split Virtqueues > >> > >section. > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >That's a good point. Probably makes sense to move it out > >> > >> >> >> >to a common section, right? > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> The example > >> > >> >> >> >> talks about transmit virtqueue, and it makes perfect sense. > >> > >> >> >> >> However, wouldn't a typical driver place equal-sized > >> > >> >> >> >> *receive* descriptors > >> > >> >> >> >anyway? So if a device can benefit from it, the driver > >> > >> >> >> >might as well negotiate this new feature. > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >Having buffer size jump around wildly doesn't seem too > >> > >> >> >> >useful, I > >> > >agree. > >> > >> >> >> >OTOH being able to adjust it gradually has been in the > >> > >> >> >> >past demontrated to help performance measureably. > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >> This could be especially relevant for devices, for which > >> > >> >> >> >> adjusting the number > >> > >> >> >> >of used descriptors is impractical after descriptors have > >> > >> >> >> >already been > >> > >> >> >fetched. > >> > >> >> >> >> I agree that if this requirement conflicts with specific > >> > >> >> >> >> driver needs, it will not > >> > >> >> >> >be negotiated, and the device will either underperform in > >> > >> >> >> >certain scenarios, or will not come up at all. > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >Right so that makes it a challenge. Device says it prefers > >> > >> >> >> >fixed buffers. Is that preference more or less important > >> > >> >> >> >than ability to efficiently support workloads such as TCP small > >queues? > >> > >> >> >> >Driver has no idea and I suspect neither does the device. > >> > >> >> >> >So I don't see how will a Linux driver know that it should > >> > >> >> >> >enable this, neither how will device know it's okay to > >> > >> >> >> >just refuse > >> > >features_ok. > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >On the other hand, current drivers already have logic that > >> > >> >> >> >tries to change buffer sizes in a smooth way. So simply > >> > >> >> >> >caching the last buffer size and assuming all the others > >> > >> >> >> >will be exactly the same will go a long way towards > >> > >> >> >> >limiting how much does device need to > >> > >> >fetch. > >> > >> >> >> >This does imply extra logic on the device to recover if > >> > >> >> >> >things change and the first read did not fetch enough > >> > >> >> >> >buffers, but then it would be required anyway if as you > >> > >> >> >> >say above the failure is not > >> > >> >catastrophic. > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> >The feature thus only seems useful for small, > >> > >> >> >> >feature-restrained devices > >> > >> >> >> >- which are prepared to sacrifice some performance to cut > >> > >> >> >> >costs, and which can't recover at all. Is this what you are trying > >to do? > >> > >> >> >> > > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> The intention is to enable devices with this specific > >> > >> >> >> limitation to offer virtio offload. The feature can be > >> > >> >> >> redefined such that it would only be offered by devices > >> > >> >> >> that are unable to handle dynamically changing descriptor > >lengths. How does that sound? > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> >So it makes more sense when mergeable buffers are disabled > >> > >> >> >(since then buffers are practically all same size). > >> > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > >> > >> >> Actually, mergeable buffers are not a problem. They could be > >> > >> >> enabled, as long as each descriptor is the same length. So > >> > >> >> implementations that prefer optimizing memory utilization over > >> > >> >> jumbo frame performance can negotiate > >VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF > >> > >and allocate smaller buffers. > >> > >> > > >> > >> >So my point was, without VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF, all buffers are > >> > >same > >> > >> >length anyway. So if we are talking about cheap simple hardware, > >> > >> >I guess it can just not have VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF and be done > >> > >> >with > >> > >it? > >> > >> >If device does care about memory utilization then I think it > >> > >> >needs to give driver the flexibility it needs/uses. > >> > >> >No? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> It's not a matter of device complexity, but a HW architecture, > >> > >> which could be > >> > >complex, but have this specific limitation. > >> > > > >> > >So - don't do it then? > >> > > > >> > >> I see at least two reasons to support and negotiate > >> > >VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF, while keeping equal-sized descriptor > >limitation: > >> > >> * GRO > >> > > > >> > >You mean LRO? > >> > > > >> > >> * With jumbo packets, if the throughput is capped by the port > >> > >> bandwidth, > >> > >and not by the device/driver per-packet performance, it makes sense > >> > >to optimize memory utilization by allocating small buffers, without > >> > >sacrificing throughput performance. > >> > > > >> > >So we are back to square one, if driver cares about memory > >> > >utilization with 1K packets vs 9K buffers, why not with 100byte > >> > >packets vs 1K buffers? Looks like exactly the same tradeoff. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> >Again I can see how we might want to disallow crazy setups with e.g. > >> > >> >1 byte per buffer. That's just abuse, no guest does that anyway. > >> > >> >So asking e.g. for a minimal buffer size sounds very reasonable. > >> > >> >But an option that disables functionality that a popular guest > >> > >> >uses needs a lot of documentation to help device writers figure > >> > >> >out whether they want that option or not, and I'd worry that > >> > >> >even with documentation will > >> > >be misunderstood even if we write it. > >> > >> >When do you enable this? > >> > >> >When you don't care about performance? When you don't care about > >> > >Linux? > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> I understand that there are guest-side optimizations that require > >> > >> flexibility > >> > >in descriptors length. I can propose the following simple logic: > >> > >> Device - advertise "equal-sized descriptor" feature only if the > >> > >> device is > >> > >absolutely unable to operate otherwise. The device will not set > >> > >FEATURES_OK unless the driver negotiates this feature. > >> > >> Driver - if device advertises "equal-sized descriptor" feature - > >> > >> if possible, > >> > >give up on the flexible descriptors length optimizations. If not - > >> > >give up on the device. > >> > > > >> > >Yes, that's possible. Looks like a rather limited feature, and i'd > >> > >rather we focused on something more widely applicable, but with > >> > >enough disclamers that devices SHOULD NOT set this bit we can maybe > >do that. > >> > > > >> > > >> > I agree that this feature is more of a limitation declaration, rather than an > >enhancement, but let me emphasize that its only purpose is to make more > >*existing* HW devices be virtio compatible. > >> > This feature will allow such HW devices to offer virtio offload with > >VIRTIO_NET_F_MRG_RXBUF capability for GRO/LRO offload. > >> > New device designs should definitely avoid employing this feature. > >> > >> I understand, my question is: can you find a way to make this more > >> generally useful? Something along the lines of the min buffer size > >> suggestion which would avoid creating a special case in the driver? > >> Any idea? > > > >as an example of a vague idea, exposing max rx s/g, min buffer + max buffer > >will allow device to force this from device side. > > > >Is that good? If not, how does driver decide on a good fixed buffer size? > > > > Setting max=min=fixed_size by the device will work, but this seems too restrictive, as we still may want to enable the driver to select its buffer size. > I guess driver can select the fixed buffer size based on the MTU. Would that be based on max MTU field then? I note that that's read-only, so just starting with that and sending it back to the device doesn't change much ... > What if device will request max/min buffer size ratio, and driver will set min buffer size? This can solve the fixed size issue, without forcing a specific size. > Along with the max s/g, maybe it can also help avoiding rx buffer size abuse by the driver (i.e. setting it too low). That sounds reasonably generic, too. -- MST

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: [virtio-comment] Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: Add equal-sized receive buffers feature***From:*Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com>

**References**:**RE: [virtio-comment] Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: Add equal-sized receive buffers feature***From:*Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com>

**Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: Add equal-sized receive buffers feature***From:*"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>

**Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: Add equal-sized receive buffers feature***From:*"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>

**RE: [virtio-comment] Re: [EXT] Re: [virtio-comment] Re: [PATCH] virtio-net: Add equal-sized receive buffers feature***From:*Vitaly Mireyno <vmireyno@marvell.com>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]