[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] [PATCH v10 0/8] Rename queue index to queue number
On Thu, Mar 30 2023, Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 00:23:33 +0300 > Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote: > >> 1. Currently, virtqueue is identified between driver and device >> interchangeably using either number or index terminology. >> >> 2. Between PCI and MMIO transport the queue size (depth) is >> defined as queue_size and QueueNum respectively. >> >> To avoid confusion and to have consistency, unify them to use Number. >> >> Solution: >> a. Use virtqueue number description, and rename MMIO register as QueueSize. > > I'm in favor of replacing number with size where appropriate. > >> b. Replace virtqueue index with virtqueue number > > I don't see the benefit of replacing virtqueue index with virtqueue > number. > > Currently virtqueue number is only used in the parts that describe > notifications (Guest->Host), the rest of the spec uses virtqueue index. > > I argue that using a different term in that context than in the rest > of the specification makes sense, because in the context of notifications > the virtqueue isn't always identified by its index. > > More precisely: if VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA has been negotiated in the > context of notifications the virtqueue is identified by the > so called "queue_notify_data"; if VIRTIO_F_NOTIF_CONFIG_DATA has been > negotiated in the context of notifications the virtqueue is identified by > the virtqueue index (as usual, for example in queue_select, or in > the ccws). > > As I've pointed out in my comment to patch 2, I believe replacing > virtqueue index with virtqueue number is detrimental to clarity. > > Thus please find a counter-proposal below. If there is interest > I can make a series out of it, and prettify it. If I can't convince > you guys, then I will have to get used to vqn and virtqueue number. I would generally prefer "index" as well, but there seemed to be a strong sentiment that we should go with "number"... so, what *is* the actual general sentiment? It's hard to say, but maybe most people are fine with either? > > AFAIR the other problem with index was the RSS for virtio-net. But there > we are currently heading down a direction of introducing a new > abstraction. This approach avoids confusion around the term 'virtqueue > index' as much as it avoids confusion around the term 'virtqueue nuber'. > > >> c. RSS area of virtio net has inherited some logic, describe it >> using abstract rss_rq_id. > > -------------------------8<-------------------------------------- > From: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> > Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2023 17:57:53 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] content: clarify how virtques are identified > > Clarify how virtqueues are identified in the context of > available notifications and in the context of RSS for > virtio-net . > > Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@linux.ibm.com> > --- > content.tex | 15 ++++++++++----- > device-types/net/description.tex | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > transport-ccw.tex | 2 +- > transport-pci.tex | 7 ++++--- > 4 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-) (...) > +struct rss_rq_id { > + le16 value; /* virtqueue index divided by two */ > +}; > + > struct virtio_net_rss_config { > le32 hash_types; > le16 indirection_table_mask; > - le16 unclassified_queue; > - le16 indirection_table[indirection_table_length]; > + struct rss_rq_id unclassified_queue; > + struct rss_rq_id indirection_table[indirection_table_length]; > le16 max_tx_vq; > u8 hash_key_length; > u8 hash_key_data[hash_key_length]; > }; > \end{lstlisting} > + > +The type struct rss\_rq\_id is introduced to better distinguish receive queue > +ids form other integral fields. > + > +A receive queue id is only defined for receive queues, as the virtqueue index > +of the receive virtqueue divided by two (the virtqueue index of a receive > +queue is always even). For example receiveq4 is identified by the virtqueue > +index 6 and the receive queue id 3. FWIW, I think this is much easier to understand.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]