From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [Pv-ops][PATCH] Netback multiple tasklet support Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:23:03 -0800 Message-ID: <4B200727.8040000@goop.org> References: <4FA716B1526C7C4DB0375C6DADBC4EA342A7A7E951@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> <4FA716B1526C7C4DB0375C6DADBC4EA342A7A7E95E@LONPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> <4B182D87.6030901@goop.org> <4B187513.80003@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Xu, Dongxiao" Cc: Steven Smith , Ian Pratt , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Ian Campbell List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 12/08/09 01:22, Xu, Dongxiao wrote: > Jeremy, > I have revised the patch according to your suggestion. See attachment. > 0001: Keep group number as 1, and put all the global/static variables to struct xen_netbk. Do some preparations for multiple tasklets support. > 0002: Support for netback multiple tasklet. > 0003: Use kernel thread to replace the tasklet in order to ensure the dom0 userspace QoS. > Thanks, this looks much better. The only thing which lept out at me from a first reading is that "group_nr" is still too generic a name for a global symbol. Something like "xen_netbk_nr_groups" perhaps? Also, is it worth making it a tunable? Presumably it needn't scale exactly with the number of dom0 cpus; if you only have one or two gbit interfaces, then you could saturate that pretty quickly with a small number of cpus, regardless of how many domains you have. I've pushed this out in its own branch: xen/dom0/backend/netback-tasklet; please post any future patches against this branch. J