From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next rfc v7 2/3] virtio_net: multiqueue support
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2012 13:11:18 +0200
Message-ID: <20121203111118.GC26167@redhat.com>
References: <1354011360-39479-1-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com>
 <1354011360-39479-3-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com>
 <87vccjj3hj.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
 <20845723.CY8SZ4xV0F@jason-thinkpad-t430s>
 <20121203094735.GA23009@redhat.com>
 <50BC7896.4010504@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, krkumar2@in.ibm.com,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	bhutchings@solarflare.com, jwhan@filewood.snu.ac.kr,
	shiyer@redhat.com
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <50BC7896.4010504@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 06:01:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 12/03/2012 05:47 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 02:05:27PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >> On Monday, December 03, 2012 12:34:08 PM Rusty Russell wrote:
> >>> Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> writes:
> >>>> +static const struct ethtool_ops virtnet_ethtool_ops;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +/*
> >>>> + * Converting between virtqueue no. and kernel tx/rx queue no.
> >>>> + * 0:rx0 1:tx0 2:cvq 3:rx1 4:tx1 ... 2N+1:rxN 2N+2:txN
> >>>> + */
> >>>> +static int vq2txq(struct virtqueue *vq)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	int index = virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq);
> >>>> +	return index == 1 ? 0 : (index - 2) / 2;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static int txq2vq(int txq)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	return txq ? 2 * txq + 2 : 1;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static int vq2rxq(struct virtqueue *vq)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	int index = virtqueue_get_queue_index(vq);
> >>>> +	return index ? (index - 1) / 2 : 0;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static int rxq2vq(int rxq)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	return rxq ? 2 * rxq + 1 : 0;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>> I thought MST changed the proposed spec to make the control queue always
> >>> the last one, so this logic becomes trivial.
> >> But it may break the support of legacy guest. If we boot a legacy single queue 
> >> guest on a 2 queue virtio-net device. It may think vq 2 is cvq which is indeed 
> >> rx1.
> > Legacy guyest support should be handled by host using feature
> > bits in the usual way: host should detect legacy guest
> > by checking the VIRTIO_NET_F_RFS feature.
> >
> > If VIRTIO_NET_F_RFS is acked, cvq is vq max_virtqueue_pairs * 2.
> > If it's not acked, cvq is vq 2.
> >
> 
> We could, but we didn't gain much from this.

It just seems cleaner and easier to understand.

> Furthermore, we need also
> do the dynamic creation/destroying of virtqueues during feature
> negotiation which seems not supported in qemu now.

It's not *done* in qemu now, but it seems easy: just call
virtio_add_queue for vq2 and on from virtio_net_set_features.
As features can be modified multiple times, we
should add virtio_del_queue and call that beforehand
to get to the known state (two vqs).

-- 
MST