On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:35:29AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 08:40 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:38:39AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > @@ -924,11 +1032,10 @@ static void virtnet_get_ringparam(struct net_device *dev,
> > > > {
> > > > struct virtnet_info *vi = netdev_priv(dev);
> > > >
> > > > - ring->rx_max_pending = virtqueue_get_vring_size(vi->rvq);
> > > > - ring->tx_max_pending = virtqueue_get_vring_size(vi->svq);
> > > > + ring->rx_max_pending = virtqueue_get_vring_size(vi->rq[0].vq);
> > > > + ring->tx_max_pending = virtqueue_get_vring_size(vi->sq[0].vq);
> > > > ring->rx_pending = ring->rx_max_pending;
> > > > ring->tx_pending = ring->tx_max_pending;
> > > > -
> > > > }
> > >
> > > This assumes all vqs are the same size. I think this should probably
> > > check: for mq mode, use the first vq, otherewise use the 0th.
> >
> > For rx_pending/tx_pending I think what is required here is the
> > actual number of outstanding buffers.
> > Dave, Eric - right?
> >
> > So this should be the total over all rings and to be useful,
> > rx_max_pending/tx_max_pending should be the total too.
>
> So far as I know, all current implementations use the number of
> descriptors per ring here. virtio_net should be consistent with this.
>
> Ben.
Problem is, it could in theory be different between rings. I guess we
could use the maximum.
What's the right thing to do for rx_pending - I am guessing
we want the current outstanding packets right?
> > > For bonus points, check this assertion at probe time.
> >
> > Looks like we can easily support different queues too.
> >
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings, Staff Engineer, Solarflare
> Not speaking for my employer; that's the marketing department's job.
> They asked us to note that Solarflare product names are trademarked.
--
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
