Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 17 Apr 2023 07:40:19 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Alvaro Karsz <alvaro.karsz@solid-run.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        "davem@davemloft.net" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        "edumazet@google.com" <edumazet@google.com>,
        "kuba@kernel.org" <kuba@kernel.org>,
        "pabeni@redhat.com" <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" 
        <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        "netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] virtio-net: reject small vring sizes
Message-ID: <20230417073830-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20230416164453-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <CACGkMEvFhVyWb5+ET_akPvnjUq04+ZbJC8o_GtNBWqSMGNum8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230417021725-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <AM0PR04MB4723B8489F8F9AE547393697D49C9@AM0PR04MB4723.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20230417023911-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <AM0PR04MB47237BFB8BB3A3606CE6A408D49C9@AM0PR04MB4723.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20230417030713-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <AM0PR04MB4723F3E6AE381AEC36D1AEFED49C9@AM0PR04MB4723.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
 <20230417051816-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <AM0PR04MB47237705695AFD873DEE4530D49C9@AM0PR04MB4723.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AM0PR04MB47237705695AFD873DEE4530D49C9@AM0PR04MB4723.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk

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.

-- 
MST