On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:40:36PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:34:55 +0200 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:02:58PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:46:45 +0200 > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:33:15PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:26:58 +0200 > > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > For some places on data path, it might be worth it > > > > > > to cache the correct value e.g. as part of device > > > > > > structure. This replaces a branch with a memory load, > > > > > > so the gain would have to be measured, best done > > > > > > separately? > > > > > > > > > > I think we'll want to do some measuring once the basic structure is > > > > > in place anyway. > > > > > > > > What's meant by in place here? > > > > > > That this patchset is ready :) > > > > Also it's ready to the level where benchmarking is possible, right? I > > don't think you should wait until we finish polishing up commit > > messages. > > My point is that I haven't even found time yet to test this > thouroughly :(If my experience shows anything, it's unlikely we'll get appropriate testing without code being upstream first. That's why I pushed on with sparse tagging btw. This way we can be reasonably sure we didn't miss some path. -- MST
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:51:26 +0200 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote:> On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:40:36PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:34:55 +0200 > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:02:58PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:46:45 +0200 > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:33:15PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:26:58 +0200 > > > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > For some places on data path, it might be worth it > > > > > > > to cache the correct value e.g. as part of device > > > > > > > structure. This replaces a branch with a memory load, > > > > > > > so the gain would have to be measured, best done > > > > > > > separately? > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we'll want to do some measuring once the basic structure is > > > > > > in place anyway. > > > > > > > > > > What's meant by in place here? > > > > > > > > That this patchset is ready :) > > > > > > Also it's ready to the level where benchmarking is possible, right? I > > > don't think you should wait until we finish polishing up commit > > > messages. > > > > My point is that I haven't even found time yet to test this > > thouroughly :( > > If my experience shows anything, it's unlikely we'll get appropriate > testing without code being upstream first. > That's why I pushed on with sparse tagging btw. > This way we can be reasonably sure we didn't miss some path.I know that I'm likely the only one to test ccw (unless I manage to get some other also-busy people to try this out). What's the status of virtio-pci, btw? Can people actually test this sanely?
On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 02:00:04PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote:> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:51:26 +0200 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:40:36PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 14:34:55 +0200 > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 01:02:58PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 13:46:45 +0200 > > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2014 at 12:33:15PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 11:26:58 +0200 > > > > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For some places on data path, it might be worth it > > > > > > > > to cache the correct value e.g. as part of device > > > > > > > > structure. This replaces a branch with a memory load, > > > > > > > > so the gain would have to be measured, best done > > > > > > > > separately? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we'll want to do some measuring once the basic structure is > > > > > > > in place anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > What's meant by in place here? > > > > > > > > > > That this patchset is ready :) > > > > > > > > Also it's ready to the level where benchmarking is possible, right? I > > > > don't think you should wait until we finish polishing up commit > > > > messages. > > > > > > My point is that I haven't even found time yet to test this > > > thouroughly :( > > > > If my experience shows anything, it's unlikely we'll get appropriate > > testing without code being upstream first. > > That's why I pushed on with sparse tagging btw. > > This way we can be reasonably sure we didn't miss some path. > > I know that I'm likely the only one to test ccw (unless I manage to get > some other also-busy people to try this out). > > What's the status of virtio-pci, btw? Can people actually test this > sanely?Sure, I'm testing that it's not broken by these patches. Others can do so, too. Once ccw is done on host and guest (will be complete after I send v8), it will be easier to add virtio 1.0 for more transports. OTOH if we require that everything is ready and perfect before merging anything we'll never get anywhere. -- MST