On 2018年09月13日 16:59, Tiwei Bie wrote:
If what you say is true then we should take a careful look
and not supporting these generic things with packed layout.
Once we do support them it will be too late and we won't
be able to get performance back.
I think it's a good point that we don't need to support
everything in packed ring (especially these which would
hurt the performance), as the packed ring aims at high
performance. I'm also wondering about the features. Is
there any possibility that we won't support the out of
order processing (at least not by default) in packed ring?
If I didn't miss anything, the need to support out of order
processing in packed ring will make the data structure
inside the driver not cache friendly which is similar to
the case of the descriptor table in the split ring (the
difference is that, it only happens in driver now).
Out of order is not the only user, DMA is another one. We don't have
used ring(len), so we need to maintain buffer length somewhere even for
in order device. But if it's not too late, I second for a OUT_OF_ORDER
feature. Starting from in order can have much simpler code in driver.
Thanks
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
