On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 09:49:42AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 09:10:31 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Well one can imagine a driver doing:
> >
> > while (virtqueue_get_buf()) {
> > virtqueue_add_buf()
> > }
> > virtqueue_kick()
> >
> > which looks sensible (batch kicks) but might
> > process any number of bufs between kicks.
>
> No, we currently only expose the buffers in the kick, so it can only
> fill the ring doing that.
>
> We could change that (and maybe that's worth looking at)...
Yes, I think we should - this way host and guest can process
data in parallel without a kick.
My patchset included that simply because it's one index
less to be confused about.
> > If we look at drivers closely enough, I think none
> > of them do the equivalent of the above, but not 100% sure.
>
> I'm pretty sure we don't have this kind of 'echo' driver yet. Drivers
> tend to take OS requests and queue them. The only one which does
> anything even partially sophisticated is the net driver...
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
--
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
