On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 04:54:22PM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > On 1/26/2022 4:40 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 11:39:15AM +0200, Max Gurtovoy wrote: > > > +Regardless of device offering VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER, admin queue command > > > buffers > > > +are used by the device in out of order manner. > > Instead of special-casing AQ I'd like to see a generic capability > > addressing this need. For example, TX for virtio net might benefit from > > this too. And I'd like to mention, again, VIRTIO_F_PARTIAL_ORDER > > proposal as one, arguably cleaner and more generic way to address this. > > We already suggested a special capability for IN_ORDER for AQ and you asked > to drop it. We drop it and agreed that AQ will be OOO. > > Why are we going back here ?
That's a misunderstanding. Currently all VQs of a device follow same ordering. So I suggested making AQ just follow ordering of rest of VQs of the device. > You also mentioned that this patch set is already big enough so why solve > all the problems we can think of in this one ? Right. So just leave the ordering be for now, driver can just skip IN_ORDER and use AQ without it if it wants to. > Why mixing > VIRTIO_F_PARTIAL_ORDER here ? PARTIAL_ORDER has its own patch, no need to mix it in. Reusing that seems cleaner than special-casing here though, we do try to have reusable modules, otherwise things just get out of hand quickly. > > And if that's not adequate I'd like to address that as part of the > > PARTIAL_ORDER proposal, this kind of per-queue in order was definitely > > on the radar as it was formulated. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
