[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v19] virtio-net: support inner header hash
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 12:00âAM Parav Pandit <parav@nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2023 1:38 AM > > [..] > > > Provisioning is far simpler thing to do in device specific way than asking device > > to store this value in onchip area which is rarely accessed. > > > > Are you suggesting to not place any new fields in the config space? > > > Yes. It's not the fault of config space itself, but the way to access the config space, more below. > > > struct virtio_net_config { > > u8 mac[6]; > > le16 status; > > le16 max_virtqueue_pairs; > > le16 mtu; > > le32 speed; > > u8 duplex; > > u8 rss_max_key_size; > > le16 rss_max_indirection_table_length; > > le32 supported_hash_types; > > }; > > > > Which of the above do you think can be accessed frequently and which part of > > the spec says it must be stored in the onchip area? > > > Most are not accessed frequently. > The fact that they are in MMIO a device needs to place in a memory with tight latency budget. This really depends on the implementation and vendor architectures. For example, 1) MSI BAR might require much more resources than a simple device configuration space 2) I was told my some vendors that the virtqueue is much more valuable than MMIO 3) We can introduce new ways to access the device configuration space > Spec is not going to talk on onchip area, it is the reflection of spec that forces certain inefficient implementation . Exactly, it's implementation specific, so config space is fine, we just need to invent new methods to access them that fit for your hardware. Thanks
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]