On Thu, 2012-01-12 at 08:09 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 03:31:59PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

quoted

However I can see at least one advantage of what you've done :-) You
never have to deal with holes in the ring.

Another advantage is the design goal for that ring:
host never needs to copy even if it completes
descriptors out of order. And out of order is something that does not
happen at all with hardware drivers. This is where paravirt is
different.

Actually out of order can happen with tagged command queue for SCSI or
ATA, tho I'm not 100% familiar with how things like AHCI handle this.

quoted

quoted

quoted

Two rings do have the advantage of not requiring host side copy, which
copy would surely add to cache pressure.

Well, a simple host could process in-order and leave stuff in the ring I
guess.  A smarter host would copy and queue, maybe leave one queue entry
in so it doesn't get flooded?

What's wrong with a ring of descriptors + a ring of completion, with a
single toggle valid bit to indicate whether a given descriptor is valid
or not (to avoid the nasty ping pong on the ring head/tails).

First, I don't understand how a valid bit avoids ping poing on the last
descriptor. Second, how do you handle out of order completions?

A toggle means the valid bit is never cleared, it just changes polarity
every time you go around the ring. So there's never a write back to 0.

Out of order is something I hadn't thought about (I was most probably
too focused on virtio-net) and is indeed a PITA. It's doable with rings
but can get nasty.

I'll give that more thought in the next week, and Rusty and I shall play
with userspace models based on your tool.

quoted

quoted

quoted

About inline - it can only help very small buffers.
Which workloads do you have in mind exactly?

It was suggested by others, but I think TCP Acks are the classic one.

Split headers + data too, tho that means supporting immediate +
indirect. 

It makes a lot of sense for command rings as well if we're going to go
down that route.

I don't see why it makes sense for commands. It's a performance
optimization and commands are off the data path.

Oh just code simplification not having to dequeue a descriptor, allocate
a buffer, etc... but a lot of that can be buried in helpers indeed.

We can't, legal PCI ProgIf values are defined in PCI spec.

Hrm, more or less yes, I suppose we should stay away from that then,
do we use revision ID for anything in virtio-land ?

Cheers,
Ben.