On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 8:33 PM Suwan Kim <suwan.kim027@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 02:14:53PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> 在 2022/3/11 下午11:28, Suwan Kim 写道:
> > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h
> > index d888f013d9ff..3fcaf937afe1 100644
> > --- a/include/uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h
> > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/virtio_blk.h
> > @@ -119,8 +119,9 @@ struct virtio_blk_config {
> > * deallocation of one or more of the sectors.
> > */
> > __u8 write_zeroes_may_unmap;
> > + __u8 unused1;
> > - __u8 unused1[3];
> > + __virtio16 num_poll_queues;
> > } __attribute__((packed));
>
>
> This looks like a implementation specific (virtio-blk-pci) optimization, how
> about other implementation like vhost-user-blk?
I didn’t consider vhost-user-blk yet. But does vhost-user-blk also
use vritio_blk_config as kernel-qemu interface?
Yes, but see below.
Does vhost-user-blk need additional modification to support polling
in kernel side?
No, but the issue is, things like polling looks not a good candidate for the attributes belonging to the device but the driver. So I have more questions:
1) what does it really mean for hardware virtio block devices?
2) Does driver polling help for the qemu implementation without polling?
3) Using blk_config means we can only get the benefit from the new device
Thanks
Regards,
Suwan Kim
_______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
