On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:58:10PM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: > On 5/17/23 11:57, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:51:03AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 5/17/23 11:46, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote: > > > > > v1 -> v2: > > > > > - Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance > > > > > sensitive API. > > > > > - Reduce changes in tools/virtio. > > > > > > > > > > Add test result(no obvious change): > > > > > Before: > > > > > time ./vringh_test --parallel > > > > > Using CPUS 0 and 191 > > > > > Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278 > > > > > Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532 > > > > > > > > > > real 0m14.463s > > > > > user 0m6.437s > > > > > sys 0m8.010s > > > > > > > > > > After: > > > > > time ./vringh_test --parallel > > > > > Using CPUS 0 and 191 > > > > > Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347 > > > > > Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292 > > > > > > > > > > real 0m14.196s > > > > > user 0m6.289s > > > > > sys 0m7.885s > > > > > > > > > > v1: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > 3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics': > > > > > https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html > > > > > > > > > > Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a > > > > > chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue. > > > > > > > > > > Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the > > > > > details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods'. > > > > > > > > > > Something is still remained: > > > > > - __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal > > > > > virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break > > > > > /vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable? > > > > > > > > Why? These just set a flag? > > > > > > > > > > Rename '__virtqueue_break' to 'vring_virtqueue_break', to make symbols > > > exported from virtio_ring.ko have unified prefix 'vring_virtqueue_xxx'. > > > > I just do not see why you need these callbacks at all. > > > > I use these callbacks for break/unbreak device like: > static inline void virtio_break_device(struct virtio_device *dev) > { > struct virtqueue *vq; > > spin_lock(&dev->vqs_list_lock); > list_for_each_entry(vq, &dev->vqs, list) { > vq->__break(vq); > } > spin_unlock(&dev->vqs_list_lock); > } why do this? backend knows they are broken. > > > > > - virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr > > > > > /virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them like > > > > > vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable? > > > > > - there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix *virtqueue*, > > > > > for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to > > > > > 'vring_virtqueue_add_split'? > > > > > zhenwei pi (2): > > > > > virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods > > > > > tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test > > > > > > > > > > drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +++++----------------- > > > > > include/linux/virtio.h | 441 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > > > > > include/linux/virtio_ring.h | 26 +++ > > > > > tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h | 355 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > > > > 4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.20.1 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > zhenwei pi > > > > -- > zhenwei pi _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
