[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] RFC: Doorbell suppression, packed-ring mode and hardware offload
On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 02:21:01PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > On 2019/2/15 äå12:23, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 11:59:55AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On 2019/2/14 äå11:41, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > > > I think it's as simple as increase the avail idx by X? Since descriptor were > > > > > used in order, device can just read the next X-1 descriptors in this case. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > Right so a spec change would be needed, it's not transparent to guest. > > > > > > With the change, IN_ORDER + split_ring becomes something like submission > > > queue (descriptor ring) + completion queue (used ring). And used ring access > > > could be eliminated sometime, e.g for net for TX, we don't care about used > > > len. > > Oh yes but fundamentally this becomes very close to packed ring. > > > Looks not, it's a two rings vs one ring. > > > > So I'm > > not sure yet another option is justified by a small gain in PPS, > > > 10% is done with less than 10 lines of code, I suspect maybe dpdk can see > more. > > > > especially considering that it depends on in order and so doesn't > > support zero copy. > > > It looks to me in order is not the blocker, even if we allow out of order, > we may still suffer from HOL. HOL isn't an issue with e.g. a dedicated VF. > > > > > > What's more interesting is, this avail idx optimization is not required for > > > out of order completion which means it could be used for e.g block or SCSI > > > device. > > I don't get the last sentence. This only works for in order right? > > > Yes, you are right. > > Thanks.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]