[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5015FEF3.5040703@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:26:43 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>, mashirle@...ibm.com,
krkumar2@...ibm.com, habanero@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
tahm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jwhan@...ewood.snu.ac.kr,
davem@...emloft.net, akong@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
sri@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [net-next RFC V5 4/5] virtio_net: multiqueue support
On 07/29/2012 05:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 02:02:58PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> On 07/20/2012 03:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> - err = init_vqs(vi);
>>>>> + if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_CTRL_VQ))
>>>>> + vi->has_cvq = true;
>>>>> +
>>> How about we disable multiqueue if there's no cvq?
>>> Will make logic a bit simpler, won't it?
>> multiqueues don't really depend on cvq. Does this added complexity really justifies adding an artificial limit?
> Well !cvq support is a legacy feature: the reason we support it
> in driver is to avoid breaking on old hosts. Adding more code to that
> path just doesn't make much sense since old hosts won't have mq.
>
After some thought about this, maybe there's no need to the cvq for the
negotiation if we want support only two modes ( 1 tx/rx queue pair and N
tx/rx queue pairs). We can do this just through the feature bit negotiation.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists