>
From: Jiri Pirko <>
> Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2023 2:31 AM
>
> Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 10:25:32PM CET, wrote:
> >
> >>
From:
> >> <- open.org> On Behalf Of David Edmondson
> >
> >> In support of live migration, might we end up moving large amounts of
> >> device state through the admin queue?
> >>
>
>Correct.
> >
> >> If so, that would seem to have some performance requirements, though
> >> I don't know if it would justify multiple admin queues.
>
>DMA of the data through the proposed AQ is supported.
> >
>
>If I understood Max correctly when Max said " This AQ is not aimed for
>
>performance ", he means that AQ doesn't have performance requirements as
> io/network queues to complete millions of ops/sec.
> >
>
>it is several hundred to maybe (on the higher side) thousand ops/sec during
> LM, provisioning use case.
>
> But isn't it good to design it for performance from start? I mean, state transfer
> of thousands of VFs at a time is definitelly performance related, isn't it?
>
It is. Which part of the proposed AQ doesn't cover this aspect?
The only issue that I see today is, that a given GET family of commands q contains the read-only and write-only descriptors which require multiple dma allocations on driver side.
>
> >
>
>DMA perspective as you mentioned, AQ still has the same perf requirements
> as that of regular nw/blk io queues.
