On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 07:08:49PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 06:18:01PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> >>>> But I don't understand how aio will make implementing it easier - >>>> or are you merely saying that it will make it worthwhile? >>>> >>> If you have aio, the the NIC and the guest proceed in parallel. If >>> the guest is faster (likely), then when it sends the next packet it >>> will see that interrupts are disabled and not notify again. Once >>> aio complete we can recheck the queue; if it's empty we reenable >>> notifications. If there's still stuff in it we submit it with >>> notifications disabled. >>> >> >> So you are saying that with aio we won't need this optimization at all? >> I guess it's late in the day, and my mind is fuzzy... >> > > No, I'm saying with aio the optimization becomes worthwhile. But I > joined late in the thread so we may be talking about different things. Oh, I see that. What Rusty's saying is that it's not as trivial as it seems, and I agree. And at some point it seemed like he was saying it's easier to implement with aio, but that probably was just my misunderstanding. -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
