[virtio-dev] Re: [virtio-comment] [PATCH 5/5] virtio-pci: implement VIRTIO_F_QUEUE_STATE

Zhu, Lingshan
2023-09-12T07:29:36Z

On 9/12/2023 2:49 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
>> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 12:08 PM
>>
>> On 9/12/2023 1:51 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>>> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:19 AM
>>>>
>>>> On 9/11/2023 7:50 PM, Parav Pandit wrote:
>>>>>> From: Zhu, Lingshan <lingshan.zhu@intel.com>
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:03 PM By the way, do you see
>>>>>> anything we need to improve in this series?
>>>>> Admin commands for passthrough devices of [1] is comprehensive
>>>>> proposal
>>>> covering all the aspects.
>>>>> To me [1] is superset work that covers all needed functionality and
>>>>> downtime
>>>> aspects.
>>>>> I plan to improve [1] with v1 this week by extending device context
>>>>> and
>>>> addressing other review comments.
>>>>> [1]
>>>>> https://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/virtio-comment/202309/msg00061
>>>>> .h
>>>>> tml
>>>> I am not sure, we have discussed a lot about the potential issues in
>>>> the treads. I guess we should resolve them first. E.g., nested use cases.
>>> You are using nesting use case as the _only_ use case and attempt to steer
>> using that.
>>> Not right.
>>>
>>> If you want to discuss, then lets have both the use cases, attempt to converge
>> and if we can its really good.
>>> If we cannot, both requirements should be handled differently.
>> Isn't nested a clear use case that should be supported?
> Most users who care for running real applications and real performance, have not asked for nesting.
> It is not mandatory case; it may be required for some users.
> I don’t know who needs M level nesting and how cpu also support its acceleration etc to run some reasonable workload.
Nested is a common use case and it is mandatory.