All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@oracle.com>,
	mst@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: virtio-blk: should num_vqs be limited by num_possible_cpus()?
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:41:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190315134112.7d63348c.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <537e6420-8994-43d6-1d4d-ccb6e0fafa0b@redhat.com>

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:50:11 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.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.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, mst@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: virtio-blk: should num_vqs be limited by num_possible_cpus()?
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 13:41:12 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190315134112.7d63348c.cohuck@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <537e6420-8994-43d6-1d4d-ccb6e0fafa0b@redhat.com>

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:50:11 +0800
Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.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.

  reply	other threads:[~2019-03-15 12:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-12 17:22 virtio-blk: should num_vqs be limited by num_possible_cpus()? Dongli Zhang
2019-03-12 17:22 ` Dongli Zhang
2019-03-12 17:33 ` Cornelia Huck
2019-03-12 17:33   ` Cornelia Huck
2019-03-13  3:26   ` Dongli Zhang
2019-03-13  3:26   ` Dongli Zhang
2019-03-13  9:39     ` Cornelia Huck
2019-03-14  6:12       ` Dongli Zhang
2019-03-14  6:12         ` Dongli Zhang
2019-03-14 12:13         ` Cornelia Huck
2019-03-14 16:08           ` Dongli Zhang
2019-03-14 16:08           ` Dongli Zhang
2019-03-14 12:13         ` Cornelia Huck
2019-03-15  4:50         ` Jason Wang
2019-03-15 12:41           ` Cornelia Huck [this message]
2019-03-15 12:41             ` Cornelia Huck
2019-03-18  7:47             ` Jason Wang
2019-03-19  2:22               ` Dongli Zhang
2019-03-20 12:53                 ` Jason Wang
2019-03-21  2:14                   ` Dongli Zhang
2019-03-21  2:14                     ` Dongli Zhang
2019-03-21 15:57                   ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-03-21 15:57                   ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2019-03-20 12:53                 ` Jason Wang
2019-03-19  2:22               ` Dongli Zhang
2019-03-18  7:47             ` Jason Wang
2019-03-15  4:50         ` Jason Wang
2019-03-13  9:39     ` Cornelia Huck
2019-03-14 12:32 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-03-14 12:32 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-03-14 15:36   ` Dongli Zhang
2019-03-14 15:36     ` Dongli Zhang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190315134112.7d63348c.cohuck@redhat.com \
    --to=cohuck@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dongli.zhang@oracle.com \
    --cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.