On 01/26/2018 10:42 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 09:40:44AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
On 01/25/2018 09:49 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 05:14:06PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
The controversy is that the free list is not static
once the lock is dropped, so everything is dynamically changing, including
the state that was recorded. The method we are using is more prudent, IMHO.
How about taking the fundamental solution, and seek to improve incrementally
in the future?
Best,
Wei
I'd like to see kicks happen outside the spinlock. kick with a spinlock
taken looks like a scalability issue that won't be easy to
reproduce but hurt workloads at random unexpected times.
Is that "kick inside the spinlock" the only concern you have? I think we
can remove the kick actually. If we check how the host side works, it is
worthwhile to let the host poll the virtqueue after it receives the cmd
id from the guest (kick for cmd id isn't within the lock).
Best,
Wei
--
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>
