Michael S. Tsirkin
2023-May-17 03:57 UTC
[PATCH v2 0/2] virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
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.> > > - 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
2023-May-17 04:58 UTC
[PATCH v2 0/2] virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
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); }>>>> - 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