From: "Xie, Huawei" <huawei.xie@intel.com>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] virtio: split virtio rx/tx queue
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 05:29:27 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C74CB1F@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160505035000.GY5641@yliu-dev.sh.intel.com>
On 5/5/2016 11:46 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 03:29:44AM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote:
>> On 5/5/2016 11:03 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 01:54:25AM +0000, Xie, Huawei wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/2016 7:59 AM, Yuanhan Liu wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 08:50:27AM +0800, Huawei Xie wrote:
>>>>>> -int virtio_dev_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>>>>>> - int queue_type,
>>>>>> - uint16_t queue_idx,
>>>>>> +static int
>>>>>> +virtio_dev_cq_queue_setup(struct rte_eth_dev *dev,
>>>>> While it's good to split Rx/Tx specific stuff, but why are you trying to
>>>>> remove a common queue_setup function that does common setups, such as vring
>>>>> memory allocation.
>>>>>
>>>>> This results to much duplicated code: following diff summary also shows
>>>>> it clearly:
>>>> The motivation to do this is we need separate RX/TX queue setup.
>>> We actually have done that. If you look at current rx/tx/ctrl_queue_setup()
>>> code, we invoked the common function; we also did some queue specific
>>> settings. It has not been done in a very clean way though: there are quite
>>> many "if .. else .." as you stated. And that's what you are going to resolve,
>>> but IMO, you went far: you made __same__ code 3 copies, one for rx, tx and
>>> ctrl queue, respectively.
>>>
>>>> The switch/case in the common queue setup looks bad.
>>> Assuming you are talking about the "if .. else .." ...
>>>
>>> While I agree with you on that, introducing so many duplicated code is worse.
>>>
>>>> I am aware of the common operations, and i had planned to extract them,
>>>> maybe i could do this in this patchset.
>>> If you meant to do in another patch on top of this patch, then it looks
>>> like the wrong way to go: breaking something first and then fixing it
>>> later does not sound a good practice to me.
>> To your later comment, we could split first, then do the queue setup rework.
> Well, if you insist, I'm Okay. But please don't do it in the way this
> patch does, that introduces quite many duplicated codes.
Yuanhan, I have no insist.
Our target is 1) remove the queue type if else checking in the
virtio_dev_queue_setup 2) extract the common setup for vq and call them
in specific RX/TX/CQ setup.
For 2, which is really meaningful to me is the queue size retrieve,
queue allocation
What I mean is firstly we split the queue, without breaking the common
setup; then introduce RX/TX specific setup calling extracted common
setup, so we don't have a chance to introduce duplicated code.
> --yliu
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-05-05 5:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-05-04 0:50 Huawei Xie
2016-05-05 0:03 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-05-05 1:54 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-05-05 3:07 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-05-05 3:29 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-05-05 3:50 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-05-05 5:29 ` Xie, Huawei [this message]
2016-05-09 5:14 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-05-09 5:44 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-05-09 16:02 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-05-24 13:38 ` Huawei Xie
2016-05-25 10:07 ` Thomas Monjalon
2016-05-25 15:01 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-05-27 9:07 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-05-30 2:40 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-05-30 3:03 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-05-30 8:17 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-05-30 9:06 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] " Huawei Xie
2016-06-01 7:15 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-06-02 6:38 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-06-02 6:43 ` Yuanhan Liu
2016-06-01 16:12 ` Huawei Xie
2016-06-02 8:09 ` Xie, Huawei
2016-06-03 2:53 ` Yuanhan Liu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=C37D651A908B024F974696C65296B57B4C74CB1F@SHSMSX101.ccr.corp.intel.com \
--to=huawei.xie@intel.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).