[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1df52766-88fb-6b23-d160-b891c3017133@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 15:47:26 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>
Cc: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@...cle.com>, mst@...hat.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: virtio-blk: should num_vqs be limited by num_possible_cpus()?
On 2019/3/15 下午8:41, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:50:11 +0800
> Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>> Or something like I proposed several years ago?
>> https://do-db2.lkml.org/lkml/2014/12/25/169
>>
>> Btw, for virtio-net, I think we actually want to go for having a maximum
>> number of supported queues like what hardware did. This would be useful
>> for e.g cpu hotplug or XDP (requires per cpu TX queue). But the current
>> vector allocation doesn't support this which will results all virtqueues
>> to share a single vector. We may indeed need more flexible policy here.
> I think it should be possible for the driver to give the transport
> hints how to set up their queues/interrupt structures. (The driver
> probably knows best about its requirements.) Perhaps whether a queue is
> high or low frequency, or whether it should be low latency, or even
> whether two queues could share a notification mechanism without
> drawbacks. It's up to the transport to make use of that information, if
> possible.
Exactly and it was what the above series tried to do by providing hints
of e.g which queues want to share a notification.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists