On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:12:43PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > On 07/14/2017 04:19 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 03:42:35PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > > > On 07/12/2017 09:56 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > So the way I see it, there are several issues: > > > > > > > > - internal wait - forces multiple APIs like kick/kick_sync > > > > note how kick_sync can fail but your code never checks return code > > > > - need to re-write the last descriptor - might not work > > > > for alternative layouts which always expose descriptors > > > > immediately > > > Probably it wasn't clear. Please let me explain the two functions here: > > > > > > 1) virtqueue_add_chain_desc(vq, head_id, prev_id,..): > > > grabs a desc from the vq and inserts it to the chain tail (which is indexed > > > by > > > prev_id, probably better to call it tail_id). Then, the new added desc > > > becomes > > > the tail (i.e. the last desc). The _F_NEXT flag is cleared for each desc > > > when it's > > > added to the chain, and set when another desc comes to follow later. > > And this only works if there are multiple rings like > > avail + descriptor ring. > > It won't work e.g. with the proposed new layout where > > writing out a descriptor exposes it immediately. > > I think it can support the 1.1 proposal, too. But before getting > into that, I think we first need to deep dive into the implementation > and usage of _first/next/last. The usage would need to lock the vq > from the first to the end (otherwise, the returned info about the number > of available desc in the vq, i.e. num_free, would be invalid): > > lock(vq); > add_first(); > add_next(); > add_last(); > unlock(vq); > > However, I think the case isn't this simple, since we need to check more > things > after each add_xx() step. For example, if only one entry is available at the > time > we start to use the vq, that is, num_free is 0 after add_first(), we > wouldn't be > able to add_next and add_last. So, it would work like this: > > start: > ...get free page block.. > lock(vq) > retry: > ret = add_first(..,&num_free,); > if(ret == -ENOSPC) { > goto retry; > } else if (!num_free) { > add_chain_head(); > unlock(vq); > kick & wait; > goto start; > } > next_one: > ...get free page block.. > add_next(..,&num_free,); > if (!num_free) { > add_chain_head(); > unlock(vq); > kick & wait; > goto start; > } if (num_free == 1) { > ...get free page block.. > add_last(..); > unlock(vq); > kick & wait; > goto start; > } else { > goto next_one; > } > > The above seems unnecessary to me to have three different APIs. > That's the reason to combine them into one virtqueue_add_chain_desc(). > > -- or, do you have a different thought about using the three APIs? > > > Implementation Reference: > > struct desc_iterator { > unsigned int head; > unsigned int tail; > }; > > add_first(*vq, *desc_iterator, *num_free, ..) > { > if (vq->vq.num_free < 1) > return -ENOSPC; > get_desc(&desc_id); > desc[desc_id].flag &= ~_F_NEXT; > desc_iterator->head = desc_id > desc_iterator->tail = desc_iterator->head; > *num_free = vq->vq.num_free; > } > > add_next(vq, desc_iterator, *num_free,..) > { > get_desc(&desc_id); > desc[desc_id].flag &= ~_F_NEXT; > desc[desc_iterator.tail].next = desc_id; > desc[desc_iterator->tail].flag |= _F_NEXT; > desc_iterator->tail = desc_id; > *num_free = vq->vq.num_free; > } > > add_last(vq, desc_iterator,..) > { > get_desc(&desc_id); > desc[desc_id].flag &= ~_F_NEXT; > desc[desc_iterator.tail].next = desc_id; > desc_iterator->tail = desc_id; > > add_chain_head(); // put the desc_iterator.head to the ring > } > > > Best, > Wei OK I thought this over. While we might need these new APIs in the future, I think that at the moment, there's a way to implement this feature that is significantly simpler. Just add each s/g as a separate input buffer. This needs zero new APIs. I know that follow-up patches need to add a header in front so you might be thinking: how am I going to add this header? The answer is quite simple - add it as a separate out header. Host will be able to distinguish between header and pages by looking at the direction, and - should we want to add IN data to header - additionally size (<4K => header). We will be able to look at extended APIs separately down the road. -- MST -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>