On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:02:06AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2012-01-11 at 14:26 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > > > I'd say that's a special case but I see what you're getting at here. > > > > So what about keeping the config space read-only and using control > > queues for > > everything else? > > Which is exactly what Rusty and I are proposing :-) > I would go further > and eliminate the idea of a seqlock and instead of a status queue with > precise messages indicating what changed. > > I would couple that with the new queue format allowing immediate data in > the descriptor to avoid having to use indirect buffers for these, which > means no allocation, no buffer pool etc... which makes everything a lot > easier to deal with as well. We just need a couple of buffers outstanding. It can't be easier, and a single buf descriptors already do not use indirection. > We could probably have a helper library for sending control messages > which could handle waiting for a ring slot to be free (practically > always the case on control queues), writing the message, sending it and > waiting for a status queue confirmation message. > > Cheers, > Ben. > Look, we have a race currently. Let us not tie a bug fix to a huge rewrite with unclear performance benefits, please. -- MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
