RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] VIRTIO_F_USED_EVENT_AUTO_DISABLE: add new used buffer notification suppression mechanism

Vamsi Krishna Attunuru
2024-11-05T16:23:37Z

Hi Wang, Michael, Jason,

I wanted to follow up on the previous discussions regarding this new used buffer notification suppression.

Since this proposal involves two changes, how about separating it out and explore the feasibilities to support interrupt coalescing with existing options.?
1) Support pvirtq_event_suppress/virtq_avail in PCI bar
2) Support used buffer notification coalescing

Regards
Vamsi

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
>Sent: Friday, July 5, 2024 1:31 PM
>To: Lege Wang <lege.wang@jaguarmicro.com>
>Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>; virtio-comment@lists.linux.dev;
>Vamsi Krishna Attunuru <vattunuru@marvell.com>; Nithin Kumar Dabilpuram
><ndabilpuram@marvell.com>; parav@nvidia.com; Leo Liu
><leo.liu@jaguarmicro.com>; Angus Chen <angus.chen@jaguarmicro.com>
>Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PATCH] VIRTIO_F_USED_EVENT_AUTO_DISABLE:
>add new used buffer notification suppression mechanism
>
>On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 03: 35: 17AM +0000, Lege Wang wrote: > hi > > Thanks for
>your comments in previous discussions. > I'd like to confirm that do you
>understand this proposal's idea now. If yes, > I may start to prepare a more
>
>On Fri, Jul 05, 2024 at 03:35:17AM +0000, Lege Wang wrote:
>> hi
>>
>> Thanks for your comments in previous discussions.
>> I'd like to confirm that do you understand this proposal's idea now.
>> If yes, I may start to prepare a more formal V2.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Xiaoguang Wang
>
>It's not that I don't understand the proposal, it's that I don't think it's a good
>proposal. It seems to rely on timeouts to solve race conditions, which are all
>hidden outside of spec.
>We should explain how things are supposed to work.
>
>--
>MST