Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH v11 6/6] virtio-balloon: VIRTIO_BALLOON_F_CMD_VQ

[Wei Wang <wei.w.wang@intel.com>]

On 06/28/2017 11:01 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 04:40:39PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > On 06/21/2017 08:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:28:00AM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > On 06/21/2017 12:18 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 06:41:41PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote:
> > > > > > -	if (!virtqueue_indirect_desc_table_add(vq, desc, num)) {
> > > > > > +	if (!virtqueue_indirect_desc_table_add(vq, desc, *num)) {
> > > > > >     		virtqueue_kick(vq);
> > > > > > -		wait_event(vb->acked, virtqueue_get_buf(vq, &len));
> > > > > > -		vb->balloon_page_chunk.chunk_num = 0;
> > > > > > +		if (busy_wait)
> > > > > > +			while (!virtqueue_get_buf(vq, &len) &&
> > > > > > +			       !virtqueue_is_broken(vq))
> > > > > > +				cpu_relax();
> > > > > > +		else
> > > > > > +			wait_event(vb->acked, virtqueue_get_buf(vq, &len));
> > > > > This is something I didn't previously notice.
> > > > > As you always keep a single buffer in flight, you do not
> > > > > really need indirect at all. Just add all descriptors
> > > > > in the ring directly, then kick.
> > > > >
> > > > > E.g.
> > > > > 	virtqueue_add_first
> > > > > 	virtqueue_add_next
> > > > > 	virtqueue_add_last
> > > > >
> > > > > ?
> > > > >
> > > > > You also want a flag to avoid allocations but there's no need to do it
> > > > > per descriptor, set it on vq.
> > > > Without using the indirect table, I'm thinking about changing to use
> > > > the standard sg (i.e. struct scatterlist), instead of vring_desc, so that
> > > > we don't need to modify or add any new functions of virtqueue_add().
> > > >
> > > > In this case, we will kmalloc an array of sgs in probe(), and we can add
> > > > the sgs one by one to the vq, which won't trigger the allocation of an
> > > > indirect table inside virtqueue_add(), and then kick when all are added.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Wei
> > > And allocate headers too? This can work. API extensions aren't
> > > necessarily a bad idea though. The API I suggest above is preferable
> > > for the simple reason that it can work without INDIRECT flag
> > > support in hypervisor.
> > OK, probably we don't need to add a desc to the vq - we can just use
> > the vq's desc, like this:
> >
> > int virtqueue_add_first(struct virtqueue *_vq,
> >                                       uint64_t addr,
> >                                       uint32_t len,
> >                                       bool in,
> >                                       unsigned int *idx) {
> >
> >      ...
> >     uint16_t desc_flags = in ? VRING_DESC_F_NEXT | VRING_DESC_F_WRITE :
> >                                               VRING_DESC_F_NEXT;
> >
> >      vq->vring.desc[vq->free_head].addr = addr;
> >      vq->vring.desc[vq->free_head].len = len;
> >      vq->vring.desc[vq->free_head].flags = cpu_to_virtio16(_vq->vdev, flags);
> >      /* return to the caller the desc id */
> >      *idx = vq->free_head;
> >      ...
> > }
> >
> > int virtqueue_add_next(struct virtqueue *_vq,
> >                                       uint64_t addr,
> >                                       uint32_t len,
> >                                       bool in,
> >                                       bool end,
> >                                       unsigned int *idx) {
> >      ...
> >      vq->vring.desc[*idx].next = vq->free_head;
> >      vq->vring.desc[vq->free_head].addr = addr;
> >      ...
> >      if (end)
> >          remove the VRING_DESC_F_NEXT flag
> > }
> Add I would say add-last.
>
> > What do you think? We can also combine the two functions into one.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> > Wei
> With an enum? Yes that's also an option.

Thanks for the suggestion. I shifted it a little bit, please have a check
the latest v12 patches that I just sent out.

Best,
Wei