Displaying 10 results from an estimated 10 matches for "cons_index".
Did you mean:
chn_index
2018 May 18
2
[RFC v4 3/5] virtio_ring: add packed ring support
...quick glance. And I found below
> comments in mlx4_en_process_rx_cq():
>
> ```
> /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx
> * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of
> * reading 'cqe->index' */
> index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask;
> cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor;
> ```
>
> It seems that although they have a completion
> queue, they are still using the ring in order.
I guess so (at least from the above bits). Git grep -i "out of order"...
2018 May 18
2
[RFC v4 3/5] virtio_ring: add packed ring support
...quick glance. And I found below
> comments in mlx4_en_process_rx_cq():
>
> ```
> /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx
> * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of
> * reading 'cqe->index' */
> index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask;
> cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor;
> ```
>
> It seems that although they have a completion
> queue, they are still using the ring in order.
I guess so (at least from the above bits). Git grep -i "out of order"...
2018 May 17
2
[RFC v4 3/5] virtio_ring: add packed ring support
On 2018?05?16? 22:33, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:05:44PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2018?05?16? 21:45, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 08:51:43PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2018?05?16? 20:39, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 07:50:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On
2018 May 17
2
[RFC v4 3/5] virtio_ring: add packed ring support
On 2018?05?16? 22:33, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:05:44PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2018?05?16? 21:45, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 08:51:43PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2018?05?16? 20:39, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 07:50:16PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On
2018 May 18
0
[RFC v4 3/5] virtio_ring: add packed ring support
...4, maybe I'm wrong.
I just had a quick glance. And I found below
comments in mlx4_en_process_rx_cq():
```
/* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx
* descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of
* reading 'cqe->index' */
index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask;
cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor;
```
It seems that although they have a completion
queue, they are still using the ring in order.
I guess maybe storage device may want OOO.
Best regards,
Tiwei Bie
>
> Thanks
>
> >...
2018 May 19
2
[RFC v4 3/5] virtio_ring: add packed ring support
...mlx4_en_process_rx_cq():
>>>
>>> ```
>>> /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx
>>> * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of
>>> * reading 'cqe->index' */
>>> index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask;
>>> cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor;
>>> ```
>>>
>>> It seems that although they have a completion
>>> queue, they are still using the ring in order.
>> I guess so (at least from the ab...
2018 May 19
2
[RFC v4 3/5] virtio_ring: add packed ring support
...mlx4_en_process_rx_cq():
>>>
>>> ```
>>> /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx
>>> * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of
>>> * reading 'cqe->index' */
>>> index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask;
>>> cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor;
>>> ```
>>>
>>> It seems that although they have a completion
>>> queue, they are still using the ring in order.
>> I guess so (at least from the ab...
2018 May 18
0
[RFC v4 3/5] virtio_ring: add packed ring support
...; > comments in mlx4_en_process_rx_cq():
> >
> > ```
> > /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx
> > * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of
> > * reading 'cqe->index' */
> > index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask;
> > cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor;
> > ```
> >
> > It seems that although they have a completion
> > queue, they are still using the ring in order.
>
> I guess so (at least from the above bits). G...
2018 May 19
0
[RFC v4 3/5] virtio_ring: add packed ring support
...;
> > > > ```
> > > > /* We assume a 1:1 mapping between CQEs and Rx descriptors, so Rx
> > > > * descriptor offset can be deduced from the CQE index instead of
> > > > * reading 'cqe->index' */
> > > > index = cq->mcq.cons_index & ring->size_mask;
> > > > cqe = mlx4_en_get_cqe(cq->buf, index, priv->cqe_size) + factor;
> > > > ```
> > > >
> > > > It seems that although they have a completion
> > > > queue, they are still using the ring in order.
>...
2020 Jul 16
0
[PATCH vhost next 10/10] vdpa/mlx5: Add VDPA driver for supported mlx5 devices
...dev, "destroy qp 0x%x\n", vqp->mqp.qpn);
> + if (!vqp->fw) {
> + mlx5_db_free(ndev->mvdev.mdev, &vqp->db);
> + rq_buf_free(ndev, vqp);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void *next_cqe_sw(struct mlx5_vdpa_cq *cq)
> +{
> + return get_sw_cqe(cq, cq->mcq.cons_index);
> +}
> +
> +static int mlx5_vdpa_poll_one(struct mlx5_vdpa_cq *vcq)
> +{
> + struct mlx5_cqe64 *cqe64;
> +
> + cqe64 = next_cqe_sw(vcq);
> + if (!cqe64)
> + return -EAGAIN;
> +
> + vcq->mcq.cons_index++;
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void mlx5_v...