Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 16 May 2023 23:46:01 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     zhenwei pi <pizhenwei@bytedance.com>
Cc:     stefanha@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com,
        xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
Message-ID: <20230516234444-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20230517025424.601141-1-pizhenwei@bytedance.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230517025424.601141-1-pizhenwei@bytedance.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 10:54:22AM +0800, zhenwei pi wrote:
> v1 -> v2:
> - Suggested by MST, use fast path for vring based performance
> sensitive API.
> - Reduce changes in tools/virtio.
> 
> Add test result(no obvious change):
> Before:
> time ./vringh_test --parallel
> Using CPUS 0 and 191
> Guest: notified 10036893, pinged 68278
> Host: notified 68278, pinged 3093532
> 
> real	0m14.463s
> user	0m6.437s
> sys	0m8.010s
> 
> After:
> time ./vringh_test --parallel
> Using CPUS 0 and 191
> Guest: notified 10036709, pinged 68347
> Host: notified 68347, pinged 3085292
> 
> real	0m14.196s
> user	0m6.289s
> sys	0m7.885s
> 
> v1:
> Hi,
> 
> 3 weeks ago, I posted a proposal 'Virtio Over Fabrics':
> https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202304/msg00442.html
> 
> Jason and Stefan pointed out that a non-vring based virtqueue has a
> chance to overwrite virtqueue instead of using vring virtqueue.
> 
> Then I try to abstract virtqueue related methods in this series, the
> details changes see the comment of patch 'virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods'.
> 
> Something is still remained:
> - __virtqueue_break/__virtqueue_unbreak is supposed to use by internal
>   virtio core, I'd like to rename them to vring_virtqueue_break
>   /vring_virtqueue_unbreak. Is this reasonable?

Why? These just set a flag?

> - virtqueue_get_desc_addr/virtqueue_get_avail_addr/virtqueue_get_used_addr
>   /virtqueue_get_vring is vring specific, I'd like to rename them like
>   vring_virtqueue_get_desc_addr. Is this reasonable?
> - there are still some functions in virtio_ring.c with prefix *virtqueue*,
>   for example 'virtqueue_add_split', just keep it or rename it to
>   'vring_virtqueue_add_split'?
> zhenwei pi (2):
>   virtio: abstract virtqueue related methods
>   tools/virtio: implement virtqueue in test
> 
>  drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c | 285 +++++-----------------
>  include/linux/virtio.h       | 441 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  include/linux/virtio_ring.h  |  26 +++
>  tools/virtio/linux/virtio.h  | 355 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  4 files changed, 807 insertions(+), 300 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.20.1