Re: [PATCH v14 37/42] virtio_net: set the default max ring size by find_vqs()
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 03:28:18PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 03:14:43 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 02:35:03PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 02:00:16 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 02:38:57PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > > > > Use virtio_find_vqs_ctx_size() to specify the maximum ring size of tx,
> > > > > rx at the same time.
> > > > >
> > > > > | rx/tx ring size
> > > > > ---
> > > > > speed == UNKNOWN or < 10G| 1024
> > > > > speed < 40G | 4096
> > > > > speed >= 40G | 8192
> > > > >
> > > > > Call virtnet_update_settings() once before calling init_vqs() to
> > > > > update
> > > > > speed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo
> > > > > Acked-by: Jason Wang
> > > >
> > > > I've been looking at this patchset because of the resent
> > > > reported crashes, and I'm having second thoughts about this.
> > > >
> > > > Do we really want to second-guess the device supplied
> > > > max ring size? If yes why?
> > > >
> > > > Could you please share some performance data that motivated this
> > > > specific set of numbers?
> > >
> > >
> > > The impact of this value on performance is as follows. The larger the
> > > value, the
> > > throughput can be increased, but the delay will also increase
> > > accordingly. It is
> > > a maximum limit for the ring size under the corresponding speed. The
> > > purpose of
> > > this limitation is not to improve performance, but more to reduce memory
> > > usage.
> > >
> > > These data come from many other network cards and some network
> > > optimization
> > > experience.
> > >
> > > For example, in the case of speed = 20G, the impact of ring size greater
> > > than 4096 on performance has no meaning. At this time, if the device
> > > supports
> > > 8192, we limit it to 4096 through this, the real meaning is to reduce the
> > > memory
> > > usage.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Also why do we intepret UNKNOWN as "very low"?
> > > > I'm thinking that should definitely be "don't change anything".
> > > >
> > >
> > > Generally speaking, for a network card with a high speed, it will return a
> > > correct speed. But I think it is a good idea to do nothing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Finally if all this makes sense then shouldn't we react when
> > > > speed changes?
> > >
> > > This is the feedback of the network card when it is started, and
> > > theoretically
> > > it should not change in the future.
> >
> > Yes it should:
> > Both \field{speed} and \field{duplex} can change, thus the driver
> > is expected to re-read these values after receiving a
> > configuration change notification.
> >
> >
> > Moreover, during probe link can quite reasonably be down.
> > If it is, then speed and duplex might not be correct.
> >
>
>
> It seems that this is indeed a problem.
>
> But I feel that this is not the reason for the abnormal network.
Yes, but it's a reason to revert this patch and rethink the approach.
> I'm still trying google cloud vm.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Could you try reverting this and showing performance results
> > > > before and after please? Thanks!
> > >
> > > I hope the above reply can help you, if there is anything else you need
> > > me to
> > > cooperate with, I am very happy.
> > >
> > > If you think it's ok, I can resubmit a commit with 'UNKNOW' set to
> > > unlimited. I
> > > can submit it with the issue of #30.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 42
> > > > >
> > > > > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > > index 8a5810bcb839..40532ecbe7fc 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > > @@ -3208,6 +3208,29 @@ static unsigned int
> > > > > mergeable_min_buf_len(struct virtnet_info *vi, struct virtqu
> > > > > (unsigned int)GOOD_PACKET_LEN);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static void virtnet_config_sizes(struct virtnet_info *vi, u32 *sizes)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + u32 i, rx_size, tx_size;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (vi->speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN || vi->speed < SPEED_1) {
> > > > > + rx_size = 1024;
> > > > > + tx_size = 1024;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + } else if (vi->speed < SPEED_4) {
> > > > > + rx_size = 1024 * 4;
> > > > > + tx_size = 1024 * 4;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > > + rx_size = 1024 * 8;
> > > > > + tx_size = 1024 * 8;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
> > > > > + sizes[rxq2vq(i)] = rx_size;
> > > > > + sizes[txq2vq(i)] = tx_size;
> > > > > + }
Re: [PATCH v14 37/42] virtio_net: set the default max ring size by find_vqs()
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 03:14:43 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 02:35:03PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 02:00:16 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 02:38:57PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > > > Use virtio_find_vqs_ctx_size() to specify the maximum ring size of tx,
> > > > rx at the same time.
> > > >
> > > > | rx/tx ring size
> > > > ---
> > > > speed == UNKNOWN or < 10G| 1024
> > > > speed < 40G | 4096
> > > > speed >= 40G | 8192
> > > >
> > > > Call virtnet_update_settings() once before calling init_vqs() to update
> > > > speed.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo
> > > > Acked-by: Jason Wang
> > >
> > > I've been looking at this patchset because of the resent
> > > reported crashes, and I'm having second thoughts about this.
> > >
> > > Do we really want to second-guess the device supplied
> > > max ring size? If yes why?
> > >
> > > Could you please share some performance data that motivated this
> > > specific set of numbers?
> >
> >
> > The impact of this value on performance is as follows. The larger the
> > value, the
> > throughput can be increased, but the delay will also increase accordingly.
> > It is
> > a maximum limit for the ring size under the corresponding speed. The
> > purpose of
> > this limitation is not to improve performance, but more to reduce memory
> > usage.
> >
> > These data come from many other network cards and some network optimization
> > experience.
> >
> > For example, in the case of speed = 20G, the impact of ring size greater
> > than 4096 on performance has no meaning. At this time, if the device
> > supports
> > 8192, we limit it to 4096 through this, the real meaning is to reduce the
> > memory
> > usage.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Also why do we intepret UNKNOWN as "very low"?
> > > I'm thinking that should definitely be "don't change anything".
> > >
> >
> > Generally speaking, for a network card with a high speed, it will return a
> > correct speed. But I think it is a good idea to do nothing.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > > Finally if all this makes sense then shouldn't we react when
> > > speed changes?
> >
> > This is the feedback of the network card when it is started, and
> > theoretically
> > it should not change in the future.
>
> Yes it should:
> Both \field{speed} and \field{duplex} can change, thus the driver
> is expected to re-read these values after receiving a
> configuration change notification.
>
>
> Moreover, during probe link can quite reasonably be down.
> If it is, then speed and duplex might not be correct.
>
It seems that this is indeed a problem.
But I feel that this is not the reason for the abnormal network.
I'm still trying google cloud vm.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Could you try reverting this and showing performance results
> > > before and after please? Thanks!
> >
> > I hope the above reply can help you, if there is anything else you need me
> > to
> > cooperate with, I am very happy.
> >
> > If you think it's ok, I can resubmit a commit with 'UNKNOW' set to
> > unlimited. I
> > can submit it with the issue of #30.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 42
> > > > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > index 8a5810bcb839..40532ecbe7fc 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > @@ -3208,6 +3208,29 @@ static unsigned int mergeable_min_buf_len(struct
> > > > virtnet_info *vi, struct virtqu
> > > >(unsigned int)GOOD_PACKET_LEN);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static void virtnet_config_sizes(struct virtnet_info *vi, u32 *sizes)
> > > > +{
> > > > + u32 i, rx_size, tx_size;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (vi->speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN || vi->speed < SPEED_1) {
> > > > + rx_size = 1024;
> > > > + tx_size = 1024;
> > > > +
> > > > + } else if (vi->speed < SPEED_4) {
> > > > + rx_size = 1024 * 4;
> > > > + tx_size = 1024 * 4;
> > > > +
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + rx_size = 1024 * 8;
> > > > + tx_size = 1024 * 8;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
> > > > + sizes[rxq2vq(i)] = rx_size;
> > > > + sizes[txq2vq(i)] = tx_size;
> > > > + }
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > > > {
> > > > vq_callback_t **callbacks;
> > > > @@ -3215,6 +3238,7 @@ static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info
> > > > *vi)
> > > > int ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > > int i, total_vqs;
> > > > const char **names;
> > > > + u32 *sizes;
> > > > bool *ctx;
> > > >
> > >
Re: [PATCH v14 37/42] virtio_net: set the default max ring size by find_vqs()
On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 02:35:03PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 02:00:16 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 02:38:57PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > > Use virtio_find_vqs_ctx_size() to specify the maximum ring size of tx,
> > > rx at the same time.
> > >
> > > | rx/tx ring size
> > > ---
> > > speed == UNKNOWN or < 10G| 1024
> > > speed < 40G | 4096
> > > speed >= 40G | 8192
> > >
> > > Call virtnet_update_settings() once before calling init_vqs() to update
> > > speed.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo
> > > Acked-by: Jason Wang
> >
> > I've been looking at this patchset because of the resent
> > reported crashes, and I'm having second thoughts about this.
> >
> > Do we really want to second-guess the device supplied
> > max ring size? If yes why?
> >
> > Could you please share some performance data that motivated this
> > specific set of numbers?
>
>
> The impact of this value on performance is as follows. The larger the value,
> the
> throughput can be increased, but the delay will also increase accordingly. It
> is
> a maximum limit for the ring size under the corresponding speed. The purpose
> of
> this limitation is not to improve performance, but more to reduce memory
> usage.
>
> These data come from many other network cards and some network optimization
> experience.
>
> For example, in the case of speed = 20G, the impact of ring size greater
> than 4096 on performance has no meaning. At this time, if the device supports
> 8192, we limit it to 4096 through this, the real meaning is to reduce the
> memory
> usage.
>
>
> >
> > Also why do we intepret UNKNOWN as "very low"?
> > I'm thinking that should definitely be "don't change anything".
> >
>
> Generally speaking, for a network card with a high speed, it will return a
> correct speed. But I think it is a good idea to do nothing.
>
> > Finally if all this makes sense then shouldn't we react when
> > speed changes?
>
> This is the feedback of the network card when it is started, and theoretically
> it should not change in the future.
Yes it should:
Both \field{speed} and \field{duplex} can change, thus the driver
is expected to re-read these values after receiving a
configuration change notification.
Moreover, during probe link can quite reasonably be down.
If it is, then speed and duplex might not be correct.
> >
> > Could you try reverting this and showing performance results
> > before and after please? Thanks!
>
> I hope the above reply can help you, if there is anything else you need me to
> cooperate with, I am very happy.
>
> If you think it's ok, I can resubmit a commit with 'UNKNOW' set to unlimited.
> I
> can submit it with the issue of #30.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> >
> > > ---
> > > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 42
> > > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > index 8a5810bcb839..40532ecbe7fc 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > @@ -3208,6 +3208,29 @@ static unsigned int mergeable_min_buf_len(struct
> > > virtnet_info *vi, struct virtqu
> > > (unsigned int)GOOD_PACKET_LEN);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static void virtnet_config_sizes(struct virtnet_info *vi, u32 *sizes)
> > > +{
> > > + u32 i, rx_size, tx_size;
> > > +
> > > + if (vi->speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN || vi->speed < SPEED_1) {
> > > + rx_size = 1024;
> > > + tx_size = 1024;
> > > +
> > > + } else if (vi->speed < SPEED_4) {
> > > + rx_size = 1024 * 4;
> > > + tx_size = 1024 * 4;
> > > +
> > > + } else {
> > > + rx_size = 1024 * 8;
> > > + tx_size = 1024 * 8;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
> > > + sizes[rxq2vq(i)] = rx_size;
> > > + sizes[txq2vq(i)] = tx_size;
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > > {
> > > vq_callback_t **callbacks;
> > > @@ -3215,6 +3238,7 @@ static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > > int ret = -ENOMEM;
> > > int i, total_vqs;
> > > const char **names;
> > > + u32 *sizes;
> > > bool *ctx;
> > >
> > > /* We expect 1 RX virtqueue followed by 1 TX virtqueue, followed by
> > > @@ -3242,10 +3266,15 @@ static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info
> > > *vi)
> > > ctx = NULL;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + sizes = kmalloc_array(total_vqs, sizeof(*sizes), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > + if (!sizes)
> > > + goto err_sizes;
> > > +
> > > /* Parameters for control virtqueue, if any */
> > > if (vi->has_cvq) {
> > > callbacks[total_vqs - 1] = NULL;
> > > names[total_vqs - 1] = "control";
> > > + sizes[total_vqs - 1] = 64;
> > > }
> > >
> > > /* Allocate/initialize parameters
Re: [PATCH v14 37/42] virtio_net: set the default max ring size by find_vqs()
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 02:00:16 -0400, "Michael S. Tsirkin"
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 02:38:57PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > Use virtio_find_vqs_ctx_size() to specify the maximum ring size of tx,
> > rx at the same time.
> >
> > | rx/tx ring size
> > ---
> > speed == UNKNOWN or < 10G| 1024
> > speed < 40G | 4096
> > speed >= 40G | 8192
> >
> > Call virtnet_update_settings() once before calling init_vqs() to update
> > speed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo
> > Acked-by: Jason Wang
>
> I've been looking at this patchset because of the resent
> reported crashes, and I'm having second thoughts about this.
>
> Do we really want to second-guess the device supplied
> max ring size? If yes why?
>
> Could you please share some performance data that motivated this
> specific set of numbers?
The impact of this value on performance is as follows. The larger the value, the
throughput can be increased, but the delay will also increase accordingly. It is
a maximum limit for the ring size under the corresponding speed. The purpose of
this limitation is not to improve performance, but more to reduce memory usage.
These data come from many other network cards and some network optimization
experience.
For example, in the case of speed = 20G, the impact of ring size greater
than 4096 on performance has no meaning. At this time, if the device supports
8192, we limit it to 4096 through this, the real meaning is to reduce the memory
usage.
>
> Also why do we intepret UNKNOWN as "very low"?
> I'm thinking that should definitely be "don't change anything".
>
Generally speaking, for a network card with a high speed, it will return a
correct speed. But I think it is a good idea to do nothing.
> Finally if all this makes sense then shouldn't we react when
> speed changes?
This is the feedback of the network card when it is started, and theoretically
it should not change in the future.
>
> Could you try reverting this and showing performance results
> before and after please? Thanks!
I hope the above reply can help you, if there is anything else you need me to
cooperate with, I am very happy.
If you think it's ok, I can resubmit a commit with 'UNKNOW' set to unlimited. I
can submit it with the issue of #30.
Thanks.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 42
> > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > index 8a5810bcb839..40532ecbe7fc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > @@ -3208,6 +3208,29 @@ static unsigned int mergeable_min_buf_len(struct
> > virtnet_info *vi, struct virtqu
> >(unsigned int)GOOD_PACKET_LEN);
> > }
> >
> > +static void virtnet_config_sizes(struct virtnet_info *vi, u32 *sizes)
> > +{
> > + u32 i, rx_size, tx_size;
> > +
> > + if (vi->speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN || vi->speed < SPEED_1) {
> > + rx_size = 1024;
> > + tx_size = 1024;
> > +
> > + } else if (vi->speed < SPEED_4) {
> > + rx_size = 1024 * 4;
> > + tx_size = 1024 * 4;
> > +
> > + } else {
> > + rx_size = 1024 * 8;
> > + tx_size = 1024 * 8;
> > + }
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
> > + sizes[rxq2vq(i)] = rx_size;
> > + sizes[txq2vq(i)] = tx_size;
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > {
> > vq_callback_t **callbacks;
> > @@ -3215,6 +3238,7 @@ static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > int ret = -ENOMEM;
> > int i, total_vqs;
> > const char **names;
> > + u32 *sizes;
> > bool *ctx;
> >
> > /* We expect 1 RX virtqueue followed by 1 TX virtqueue, followed by
> > @@ -3242,10 +3266,15 @@ static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > ctx = NULL;
> > }
> >
> > + sizes = kmalloc_array(total_vqs, sizeof(*sizes), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!sizes)
> > + goto err_sizes;
> > +
> > /* Parameters for control virtqueue, if any */
> > if (vi->has_cvq) {
> > callbacks[total_vqs - 1] = NULL;
> > names[total_vqs - 1] = "control";
> > + sizes[total_vqs - 1] = 64;
> > }
> >
> > /* Allocate/initialize parameters for send/receive virtqueues */
> > @@ -3260,8 +3289,10 @@ static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > ctx[rxq2vq(i)] = true;
> > }
> >
> > - ret = virtio_find_vqs_ctx(vi->vdev, total_vqs, vqs, callbacks,
> > - names, ctx, NULL);
> > + virtnet_config_sizes(vi, sizes);
> > +
> > + ret = virtio_find_vqs_ctx_size(vi->vdev, total_vqs, vqs, callbacks,
> > + names, sizes, ctx, NULL);
> > if (ret)
> > goto err_find;
> >
> > @@ -3281,6 +3312,8 @@ static int virtnet_find_vqs(str
Re: [PATCH v14 37/42] virtio_net: set the default max ring size by find_vqs()
On Mon, Aug 01, 2022 at 02:38:57PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> Use virtio_find_vqs_ctx_size() to specify the maximum ring size of tx,
> rx at the same time.
>
> | rx/tx ring size
> ---
> speed == UNKNOWN or < 10G| 1024
> speed < 40G | 4096
> speed >= 40G | 8192
>
> Call virtnet_update_settings() once before calling init_vqs() to update
> speed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Xuan Zhuo
> Acked-by: Jason Wang
I've been looking at this patchset because of the resent
reported crashes, and I'm having second thoughts about this.
Do we really want to second-guess the device supplied
max ring size? If yes why?
Could you please share some performance data that motivated this
specific set of numbers?
Also why do we intepret UNKNOWN as "very low"?
I'm thinking that should definitely be "don't change anything".
Finally if all this makes sense then shouldn't we react when
speed changes?
Could you try reverting this and showing performance results
before and after please? Thanks!
> ---
> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 42
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> index 8a5810bcb839..40532ecbe7fc 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> @@ -3208,6 +3208,29 @@ static unsigned int mergeable_min_buf_len(struct
> virtnet_info *vi, struct virtqu
> (unsigned int)GOOD_PACKET_LEN);
> }
>
> +static void virtnet_config_sizes(struct virtnet_info *vi, u32 *sizes)
> +{
> + u32 i, rx_size, tx_size;
> +
> + if (vi->speed == SPEED_UNKNOWN || vi->speed < SPEED_1) {
> + rx_size = 1024;
> + tx_size = 1024;
> +
> + } else if (vi->speed < SPEED_4) {
> + rx_size = 1024 * 4;
> + tx_size = 1024 * 4;
> +
> + } else {
> + rx_size = 1024 * 8;
> + tx_size = 1024 * 8;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
> + sizes[rxq2vq(i)] = rx_size;
> + sizes[txq2vq(i)] = tx_size;
> + }
> +}
> +
> static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> {
> vq_callback_t **callbacks;
> @@ -3215,6 +3238,7 @@ static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> int ret = -ENOMEM;
> int i, total_vqs;
> const char **names;
> + u32 *sizes;
> bool *ctx;
>
> /* We expect 1 RX virtqueue followed by 1 TX virtqueue, followed by
> @@ -3242,10 +3266,15 @@ static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> ctx = NULL;
> }
>
> + sizes = kmalloc_array(total_vqs, sizeof(*sizes), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!sizes)
> + goto err_sizes;
> +
> /* Parameters for control virtqueue, if any */
> if (vi->has_cvq) {
> callbacks[total_vqs - 1] = NULL;
> names[total_vqs - 1] = "control";
> + sizes[total_vqs - 1] = 64;
> }
>
> /* Allocate/initialize parameters for send/receive virtqueues */
> @@ -3260,8 +3289,10 @@ static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> ctx[rxq2vq(i)] = true;
> }
>
> - ret = virtio_find_vqs_ctx(vi->vdev, total_vqs, vqs, callbacks,
> - names, ctx, NULL);
> + virtnet_config_sizes(vi, sizes);
> +
> + ret = virtio_find_vqs_ctx_size(vi->vdev, total_vqs, vqs, callbacks,
> +names, sizes, ctx, NULL);
> if (ret)
> goto err_find;
>
> @@ -3281,6 +3312,8 @@ static int virtnet_find_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
>
>
> err_find:
> + kfree(sizes);
> +err_sizes:
> kfree(ctx);
> err_ctx:
> kfree(names);
> @@ -3630,6 +3663,9 @@ static int virtnet_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> vi->curr_queue_pairs = num_online_cpus();
> vi->max_queue_pairs = max_queue_pairs;
>
> + virtnet_init_settings(dev);
> + virtnet_update_settings(vi);
> +
> /* Allocate/initialize the rx/tx queues, and invoke find_vqs */
> err = init_vqs(vi);
> if (err)
> @@ -3642,8 +3678,6 @@ static int virtnet_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
> netif_set_real_num_tx_queues(dev, vi->curr_queue_pairs);
> netif_set_real_num_rx_queues(dev, vi->curr_queue_pairs);
>
> - virtnet_init_settings(dev);
> -
> if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_STANDBY)) {
> vi->failover = net_failover_create(vi->dev);
> if (IS_ERR(vi->failover)) {
> --
> 2.31.0
___
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
