From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] virtio: new API for addition of buffers, scatterlist changes
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:30:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5113AC8E.5030508@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130207133133.GC21707@redhat.com>
Il 07/02/2013 14:31, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> > Single means *this piece* (for example a request header) is single. It
> > could still end up in an indirect buffer because QEMU does not support
> > mixed direct/indirect buffers.
>
> Yes but why is the optimization worth it?
> It makes sense if all we want to do is add a single buffer
> in one go, this would give us virtqueue_add_buf_single.
>
> But if we are building up an s/g list anyway,
> speeding up one of the entries a tiny bit
> seems very unlikely to be measureable.
> No?
There is some optimization potential even in unrolling the loop, but
yes, it looks like I misunderstood. I'll add virtqueue_add_buf_single
instead.
Paolo
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>,
asias@redhat.com, Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] virtio: new API for addition of buffers, scatterlist changes
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 14:30:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5113AC8E.5030508@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130207133133.GC21707@redhat.com>
Il 07/02/2013 14:31, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> > Single means *this piece* (for example a request header) is single. It
> > could still end up in an indirect buffer because QEMU does not support
> > mixed direct/indirect buffers.
>
> Yes but why is the optimization worth it?
> It makes sense if all we want to do is add a single buffer
> in one go, this would give us virtqueue_add_buf_single.
>
> But if we are building up an s/g list anyway,
> speeding up one of the entries a tiny bit
> seems very unlikely to be measureable.
> No?
There is some optimization potential even in unrolling the loop, but
yes, it looks like I misunderstood. I'll add virtqueue_add_buf_single
instead.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-07 13:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-07 12:22 [RFC PATCH 0/8] virtio: new API for addition of buffers, scatterlist changes Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` [RFC PATCH 1/8] virtio: add functions for piecewise addition of buffers Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] virtio-blk: reorganize virtblk_add_req Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` [RFC PATCH 3/8] virtio-blk: use virtqueue_start_buf on bio path Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` [RFC PATCH 4/8] virtio-blk: use virtqueue_start_buf on req path Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` [RFC PATCH 5/8] scatterlist: introduce sg_unmark_end Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:35 ` Jens Axboe
2013-02-07 12:35 ` Jens Axboe
2013-02-07 12:22 ` [RFC PATCH 6/8] virtio-net: unmark scatterlist ending after virtqueue_add_buf Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` [RFC PATCH 7/8] virtio-scsi: use virtqueue_start_buf Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` [RFC PATCH 8/8] virtio: reimplement virtqueue_add_buf using new functions Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 12:22 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 13:09 ` [RFC PATCH 0/8] virtio: new API for addition of buffers, scatterlist changes Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-02-07 13:09 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-02-07 13:14 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 13:14 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 13:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-02-07 13:23 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-02-07 13:20 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 13:20 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-07 13:31 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-02-07 13:31 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-02-07 13:30 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2013-02-07 13:30 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-08 4:05 ` Rusty Russell
2013-02-08 4:05 ` Rusty Russell
2013-02-08 6:35 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-08 6:35 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-02-08 11:52 ` Jens Axboe
2013-02-08 11:52 ` Jens Axboe
2013-02-13 9:46 ` Rusty Russell
2013-02-13 9:46 ` Rusty Russell
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=5113AC8E.5030508@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@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.