Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 1 Jun 2020 14:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:   Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>
To:     Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc:     Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>, jgross@suse.com,
        boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        ericvh@gmail.com, lucho@ionkov.net,
        Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] 9p/xen: increase XEN_9PFS_RING_ORDER
In-Reply-To: <20200522055847.GA2833@nautica>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2006011406100.12801@sstabellini-ThinkPad-T480s>
References: <20200521193242.15953-1-sstabellini@kernel.org> <20200522055847.GA2833@nautica>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

n Fri, 22 May 2020, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> Stefano Stabellini wrote on Thu, May 21, 2020:
> > From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com>
> > 
> > Increase XEN_9PFS_RING_ORDER to 9 for performance reason. Order 9 is the
> > max allowed by the protocol.
> > 
> > We can't assume that all backends will support order 9. The xenstore
> > property max-ring-page-order specifies the max order supported by the
> > backend. We'll use max-ring-page-order for the size of the ring.
> > 
> > This means that the size of the ring is not static
> > (XEN_FLEX_RING_SIZE(9)) anymore. Change XEN_9PFS_RING_SIZE to take an
> > argument and base the calculation on the order chosen at setup time.
> > 
> > Finally, modify p9_xen_trans.maxsize to be divided by 4 compared to the
> > original value. We need to divide it by 2 because we have two rings
> > coming off the same order allocation: the in and out rings. This was a
> > mistake in the original code. Also divide it further by 2 because we
> > don't want a single request/reply to fill up the entire ring. There can
> > be multiple requests/replies outstanding at any given time and if we use
> > the full ring with one, we risk forcing the backend to wait for the
> > client to read back more replies before continuing, which is not
> > performant.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xilinx.com>
> 
> LGTM, I'll try to find some time to test this by the end of next week or
> will trust you if I can't make it -- ping me around June 1st if I don't
> reply again until then...

Ping :-)