Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181102160710.3741-1-v.mayatskih@gmail.com> <20181102160710.3741-2-v.mayatskih@gmail.com>
 <fe79c7fd-1e9f-dab8-3c65-8151181c922c@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <fe79c7fd-1e9f-dab8-3c65-8151181c922c@redhat.com>
From:   Vitaly Mayatskih <v.mayatskih@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 4 Nov 2018 22:28:34 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGF4SLgDk+48aLKHhA_ZgRc6D30tGdnB89b5m5bZKwzyoDb0dQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] vhost: add per-vq worker thread
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc:     "Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 9:53 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:

> I wonder whether or not it's better to allow the device to specific the
> worker here instead of forcing a per vq worker model. Then we can keep
> the behavior of exist implementation and do optimization on top?

I was thinking about that too, but for the sake of simplicity it
sounds valid that if the user wanted 8 parallel queues for the disk,
they better be parallel, i.e. worker per queue. The rest of disks that
don't need high-performance, can have 1 queue specified.

-- 
wbr, Vitaly