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 at linux.intel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 5:51 PM > To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com> > Cc: Wang, Zhihong <zhihong.wang at intel.com>; dev at dpdk.org > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH] optimize vhost enqueue > > 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 reason I > > >>>keep it as one function body is that: > > >>> > > >>> 1. This function is very performance sensitive, and we need full > > >>> control 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 logic, > > >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. > > Yes. > > > 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. > > Yes. > > > > > >This patch doesn't try to fix this issue, it rewrites the logic totally, > > >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. > > Yes. > > > > > And the stable branch is not meant for integrating such big reworks, > > it is only meant to fix bugs. > > Yes. > > > The risk of regressions have to be avoided as much as possible. > > Yes. > > --yliu
