From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 3/6] netback: switch to NAPI + kthread
 model
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:49:38 +0000
Message-ID: <1326710978.5285.9.camel@liuw-desktop>
References: <1326473949-22389-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	 <1326473949-22389-4-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	 <4F107625.7090601@citrix.com> <1326706394.5285.5.camel@liuw-desktop>
	 <1326710711.17210.411.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
	"konrad.wilk@oracle.com" <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>,
	"netdev@vger.kernel.org" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from smtp.eu.citrix.com ([62.200.22.115]:8412 "EHLO
	SMTP.EU.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754086Ab2APKu0 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 05:50:26 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1326710711.17210.411.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 10:45 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 09:33 +0000, Wei Liu (Intern) wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-01-13 at 18:21 +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
> > > On 13/01/12 16:59, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > > This patch implements 1:1 model netback. We utilizes NAPI and kthread
> > > > to do the weight-lifting job:
> > > > 
> > > >   - NAPI is used for guest side TX (host side RX)
> > > >   - kthread is used for guest side RX (host side TX)
> > > > 
> > > > This model provides better scheduling fairness among vifs. It also
> > > > lays the foundation for future work.
> > > > 
> > > > The major defect for the current implementation is that in the NAPI
> > > > poll handler we don't actually disable interrupt. Xen stuff is
> > > > different from real hardware, it requires some other tuning of ring
> > > > macros.
> > > 
> > > RING_FINAL_CHECK_FOR_REQUESTS() looks it does the correct thing to me.
> > > 
> > > David
> > 
> > I need to stop the other end from generating events, so
> > RING_FINAL_CHECK_FOR_REQUESTS is not the right answer I think.
> 
> What you need is a variant which sets req_event some large distance into
> the future instead of to just req_cons + 1. Or possibly it should be set
> to just in the past (e.g. req_cons - 1). Call it something like
> RING_POLL_FOR_REQUESTS().
> 

Seems like a right direction. Will try this.


Wei.

> Ian.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Wei.
> > 
> 
>