Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] virtio: support layout with avail ring before idx

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 08:46:49PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 08:05:43 pm Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 12:04:57PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 12:17:12 am Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > This adds an (unused) option to put available ring before control (avail
> > > > index, flags), and adds padding between index and flags. This avoids
> > > > cache line sharing between control and ring, and also makes it possible
> > > > to extend avail control without incurring extra cache misses.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > No no no no.  254?  You're trying to Morton me![1]
> > 
> > Hmm, I wonder what will we do if we want a 3rd field on
> > a separate chacheline. But ok.
> > 
> > > How's this (untested):
> > 
> > I think we also want to put flags there as well,
> > they are used on interrupt path, together with last used index.
> 
> I'm uncomfortable with moving a field.
> 
> We haven't done that before and I wonder what will break with old code.

With e.g. my patch, We only do this conditionally when bit is negotitated.

> Should we instead just abandon the flags field and use last_used only?
> Or, more radically, put flags == last_used when the feature is on?
> 
> Thoughts?
> Rusty.

Hmm, e.g. with TX and virtio net, we almost never want interrupts,
whatever the index value.

-- 
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/