On (Thu) Nov 12 2009 [12:31:59], Rusty Russell wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:12:54 am Amit Shah wrote: > > On (Tue) Nov 10 2009 [23:37:39], Rusty Russell wrote: > > > I chose "port" as a name; it's better once we're finished than > > > "struct virtio_console_struct". > > > > I wanted to separate out a 'virtio device' which has vqs common to all > > ports and a 'port', which has its buffers, tells us if it's a console > > port, and all the other port-specific stuff. > > > > I find 'port' and 'ports' confusing. In your implementation, 'port' has > > vqs. > > Yep, that's wrong, no wonder you found it confusing. They should be in the > 'struct ports'. ie. vq == struct ports =contains= N x struct port. > > I'm steering away from the word "console", since that will now be one use > of this driver. We may end up renaming it "virtio_ports". Cool! > > > Re: [PATCH 04/15] virtio_console: Introduce a workqueue for handling host->guest notifications > > > > > > This one I disagree with. The host will wait until a buffer comes available. > > > It has to anyway, and it should work just fine. *If* we need speed, then we > > > might need workqueues so we reduce guest exits, but I don't think we need that > > > yet. > > > > So each port has a buffer that gets added to the vq and when data is > > received, it would be queued in the port-specific ring. Ports may want > > data to be cached when they're not open or when the userspace app is > > slow in reading the data. In that case, we'll have to allocate a new > > buffer to be stuffed in the vq. > > OK, I was thinking one buffer per vq. But that doesn't really work for input, > since we might get input on any port, and not want it. Seems OK for output > tho. One buffer works OK for output, but again the waiting might be the issue. > Hmm, radical idea: how about 1 vq per input? Share one for output, but > separate ones for each input port? That limits us to 255 ports, but would > allow the simplistic "just put a buffer in the queue when you want to read". > > May need a control input vq as well in this case? I went down that path too; only to discover hotplug will be an issue with the new MSI code: it wants us to pre-declare all the vqs. That's some overhead to incur. Also, (as Avi pointed out initially) one vq per port is too much of an overhead anyway for such simple functionality. Given this, can you please look at the series I had posted (I'll move it to your series plus some delta) so that I have a general idea of proceeding before git-rebase drives me totally mad? :-) Thanks, Amit _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
