Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 19/61] virtio-net : cleanup : use QOM cast.

[Anthony Liguori]

"Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:17:18PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 07:40:32PM +0100, address@hidden wrote:
>> >> @@ -130,7 +124,9 @@ static void virtio_net_set_status(struct VirtIODevice 
>> >> *vdev, uint8_t status)
>> >>  
>> >>  static void virtio_net_set_link_status(NetClientState *nc)
>> >>  {
>> >> -    VirtIONet *n = DO_UPCAST(NICState, nc, nc)->opaque;
>> >> +    void *opaque = DO_UPCAST(NICState, nc, nc)->opaque;
>> >> +    VirtIONet *n = VIRTIO_NET(opaque);
>> >> +    VirtIODevice *vdev = VIRTIO_DEVICE(n);
>> >>      uint16_t old_status = n->status;
>> >>  
>> >>      if (nc->link_down)
>> >
>> > I note this adds more pointer chasing due to runtime casts on data path
>> > operations.  Can well be trivial but this really needs to be verified
>> > with a performance test. Was this done? Same comment applies to block.
>> > An alternative is to add _fast casts without runtime checks.
>> 
>> I'm pretty sure other things like the one big global mutex are more
>> important than the number of pointer dereferences...
>
> True. But we have plans to fix that, right?
>
>> Do you have any evidence to suggest that this would be a problem in practice?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Anthony Liguori
>
> No. It's not this change specifically, I'm generally concerned if we let
> ourselves bloat datapath in an uncontrolled way, the waste will add up
> over time.

I don't think a pointer indirection can be called "bloat[ing] datapath
in an uncontrolled way".

We shouldn't focus on minor things like this, but rather on things like
notification mitigation and lock contention which we know has a direct
impact on performance.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>
>> >
>> > -- 
>> > MST