From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Wang, Zhihong" <zhihong.wang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] optimize vhost enqueue
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 13:44:21 +0000
Message-ID: <8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE0941107727A7@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
References: <1471319402-112998-1-git-send-email-zhihong.wang@intel.com>
 <bbf7f96b-81e7-1702-c055-bd231fe6fa64@redhat.com>
 <8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE09411077206B@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <20160817023825.GO30752@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
 <8F6C2BD409508844A0EFC19955BE09411077220A@SHSMSX103.ccr.corp.intel.com>
 <020de331-94f0-049a-6e7d-30825faf54dd@redhat.com>
 <20160817095111.GQ30752@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>, Maxime Coquelin
 <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [192.55.52.115])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 884BE5AB0
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:44:25 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <20160817095111.GQ30752@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
Content-Language: en-US
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

Thanks Maxime and Yuanhan for your review and suggestions!
Please help review the v2 of this patch.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yuanhan Liu [mailto:yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 5:51 PM
> To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> Cc: Wang, Zhihong <zhihong.wang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] optimize vhost enqueue
>=20
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 11:17:46AM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> > >>>This is something I've thought about while writing the code, the rea=
son I
> > >>>keep it as one function body is that:
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. This function is very performance sensitive, and we need full co=
ntrol of
> > >>>    code ordering (You can compare with the current performance with
> the
> > >>>    mrg_rxbuf feature turned on to see the difference).
> > >>
> > >>Will inline functions help?
> > >
> > >
> > >Optimization in this patch actually reorganizes the code from its logi=
c,
> > >so it's not suitable for making separated functions.
> > >
> > >I'll explain this in v2.
> >
> > I agree with Yuanhan.
> > Inline functions should not break the optimizations.
> > IMHO, this is mandatory for the patch to be accepted.
>=20
> Yes.
>=20
> > It seems you are not the only one facing the issue:
> > https://github.com/YanVugenfirer/kvm-guest-drivers-windows/issues/70
> >
> > So a dedicated fix is really important.
>=20
> Yes.
>=20
> >
> > >This patch doesn't try to fix this issue, it rewrites the logic totall=
y,
> > >and somehow fixes this issue.
> > >
> > >Do you think integrating this whole patch into the stable branch will =
work?
> > >Personally I think it makes more sense.
> >
> > No.
> > We don't even know why/how it fixes the Windows issue, which would be
> > the first thing to understand before integrating a fix in stable branch=
.
>=20
> Yes.
>=20
> >
> > And the stable branch is not meant for integrating such big reworks,
> > it is only meant to fix bugs.
>=20
> Yes.
>=20
> > The risk of regressions have to be avoided as much as possible.
>=20
> Yes.
>=20
> 	--yliu