From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wanlong Gao Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 4/5] virtio-scsi: introduce multiqueue support Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:24:32 +0800 Message-ID: <51496430.6000804@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <1363687057-13580-1-git-send-email-gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com> <1363687057-13580-5-git-send-email-gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com> <20130320014657.GA14714@google.com> Reply-To: gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130320014657.GA14714@google.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Venkatesh Srinivas 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, vsrinivas@ops101.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, mikew@google.com List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On 03/20/2013 09:46 AM, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote: > This looks pretty good! > > I rather like the (lack of) locking in I/O completion (around the req > count vs. target/queue binding). It is unfortunate that you need to hold the per-target lock in virtscsi_pick_vq() though; have any idea > how much that lock hurts? Paolo? > > Just two minor comments: > > (in struct virtio_scsi_target_data): > + /* This spinlock never help at the same time as vq_lock. */ > ^^^^ held? > > (in struct virtio_scsi): > + /* Does the affinity hint is set for virtqueues? */ > Could you rephrase that, please? Thank you, fixed in V6, please review. > > Tested on qemu and w/ Google Compute Engine's virtio-scsi device. Cool. > > Reviewed-and-tested-by: Venkatesh Srinivas Do you mind review and test the V6? Thank you. Regards, Wanlong Gao > > Thanks, > -- vs; >