From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, mst@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, JBottomley@parallels.com,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, pbonzini@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 4/5] virtio-scsi: introduce multiqueue support
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:25:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <514FFC06.9030703@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1364038124-32479-5-git-send-email-gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
On 03/23/13 12:28, Wanlong Gao wrote:
> +static struct virtio_scsi_vq *virtscsi_pick_vq(struct virtio_scsi *vscsi,
> + struct virtio_scsi_target_state *tgt)
> +{
> + struct virtio_scsi_vq *vq;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u32 queue_num;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tgt->tgt_lock, flags);
> +
> + /*
> + * The memory barrier after atomic_inc_return matches
> + * the smp_read_barrier_depends() in virtscsi_req_done.
> + */
> + if (atomic_inc_return(&tgt->reqs) > 1)
> + vq = ACCESS_ONCE(tgt->req_vq);
> + else {
> + queue_num = smp_processor_id();
> + while (unlikely(queue_num >= vscsi->num_queues))
> + queue_num -= vscsi->num_queues;
> +
> + tgt->req_vq = vq = &vscsi->req_vqs[queue_num];
> + }
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tgt->tgt_lock, flags);
> + return vq;
> +}
Is there any reason why the smp_processor_id() % vscsi->num_queues
computation in virtscsi_pick_vq() has been implemented as a loop instead
of as an arithmetic operation ? If so, I would appreciate it if that
could be explained in a comment.
Thanks,
Bart.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au,
mst@redhat.com, asias@redhat.com, JBottomley@parallels.com,
venkateshs@google.com, pbonzini@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 4/5] virtio-scsi: introduce multiqueue support
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 08:25:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <514FFC06.9030703@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1364038124-32479-5-git-send-email-gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
On 03/23/13 12:28, Wanlong Gao wrote:
> +static struct virtio_scsi_vq *virtscsi_pick_vq(struct virtio_scsi *vscsi,
> + struct virtio_scsi_target_state *tgt)
> +{
> + struct virtio_scsi_vq *vq;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u32 queue_num;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tgt->tgt_lock, flags);
> +
> + /*
> + * The memory barrier after atomic_inc_return matches
> + * the smp_read_barrier_depends() in virtscsi_req_done.
> + */
> + if (atomic_inc_return(&tgt->reqs) > 1)
> + vq = ACCESS_ONCE(tgt->req_vq);
> + else {
> + queue_num = smp_processor_id();
> + while (unlikely(queue_num >= vscsi->num_queues))
> + queue_num -= vscsi->num_queues;
> +
> + tgt->req_vq = vq = &vscsi->req_vqs[queue_num];
> + }
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tgt->tgt_lock, flags);
> + return vq;
> +}
Is there any reason why the smp_processor_id() % vscsi->num_queues
computation in virtscsi_pick_vq() has been implemented as a loop instead
of as an arithmetic operation ? If so, I would appreciate it if that
could be explained in a comment.
Thanks,
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-03-25 7:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-23 11:28 [PATCH V7 0/5] virtio-scsi multiqueue Wanlong Gao
2013-03-23 11:28 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-03-23 11:28 ` [PATCH V7 1/5] virtio-scsi: redo allocation of target data Wanlong Gao
2013-03-23 11:28 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-03-23 11:28 ` [PATCH V7 2/5] virtio-scsi: pass struct virtio_scsi to virtqueue completion function Wanlong Gao
2013-03-23 11:28 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-03-23 11:28 ` [PATCH V7 3/5] virtio-scsi: push vq lock/unlock into virtscsi_vq_done Wanlong Gao
2013-03-23 11:28 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-03-23 11:28 ` [PATCH V7 4/5] virtio-scsi: introduce multiqueue support Wanlong Gao
2013-03-23 11:28 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-03-25 7:25 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2013-03-25 7:25 ` Bart Van Assche
2013-03-25 14:27 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-03-25 14:27 ` Paolo Bonzini
2013-03-23 11:28 ` [PATCH V7 5/5] virtio-scsi: reset virtqueue affinity when doing cpu hotplug Wanlong Gao
2013-03-23 11:28 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-03-28 2:22 ` [PATCH V7 0/5] virtio-scsi multiqueue Wanlong Gao
2013-03-28 2:22 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-04-05 8:55 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-04-05 8:55 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-04-06 8:40 ` James Bottomley
2013-04-06 10:14 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-04-06 10:14 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-04-07 2:01 ` Asias He
2013-04-07 2:01 ` Asias He
2013-04-08 13:36 ` Rusty Russell
2013-04-08 13:36 ` 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=514FFC06.9030703@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=JBottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=pbonzini@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.