On 12/21/25 2:42 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 12:03:29PM +0700, Bui Quang Minh wrote: >> On 12/17/25 09:58, Jason Wang wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2025 at 12:23 AM Bui Quang Minh >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I think we can unconditionally schedule the delayed refill after >>>> enabling all the RX NAPIs (don't check the boolean schedule_refill >>>> anymore) to ensure that we will have refill work. We can still keep the >>>> try_fill_recv here to fill the receive buffer earlier in normal case. >>>> What do you think? >>> Or we can have a reill_pending >> >> Okay, let me implement this in the next version. >> >>> but basically I think we need something >>> that is much more simple. That is, using a per rq work instead of a >>> global one? >> >> I think we can leave this in a net-next patch later. >> >> Thanks, >> Quang Minh > > i am not sure per rq is not simpler than this pile of tricks. FWIW, I agree with Michael: the diffstat of the current patch is quite scaring, I don't think a per RQ work would be significantly larger, but should be significantly simpler to review and maintain.
I suggest doing directly the per RQ work implementation. Thanks! Paolo
