On 4/8/25 4:45 AM, Cindy Lu wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2025 at 12:06 AM Mike Christie > <michael.chris...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> On 4/7/25 3:17 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2025 at 06:02:48PM +0800, Cindy Lu wrote: >>>> Abstract vhost worker operations (create/stop/wakeup) into an ops >>>> structure to prepare for kthread mode support. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Cindy Lu <l...@redhat.com> >>> >>> I worry about the overhead of indirect calls here. >>> >>> We have the wrappers, and only two options, >>> why did you decide to add it like this, >>> with ops? >>> >> That was from my review comment. Originally, I thought we >> could share more code. For example I thought >> vhost_run_work_kthread_list from patch 2 in this thread and >> kernel/vhost_task.c:vhost_task_fn could be merged. >> > Hi Mike > I guess you mean function vhost_run_work_list and vhost_run_work_kthread_list? > sure, I will try to merge these two functions in next version
Oh no, I meant the opposite. I don't think it will work out like how I thought it would originally. I think Michael's concern about the extra indirect pointer access in the IO path may cause issues with net. For scsi I didn't see any issue but that's probably because we have other perf issues. So if Michael is saying to not do the ops then that's fine with me.
