netdev - Re: [PATCH] vhost_net: stop polling socket during rx processing

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 3 May 2016 10:52:44 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost_net: stop polling socket during rx processing



On 04/28/2016 02:19 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 04/27/2016 07:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 03:35:53AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> >> We don't stop polling socket during rx processing, this will lead
>>> >> unnecessary wakeups from under layer net devices (E.g
>>> >> sock_def_readable() form tun). Rx will be slowed down in this
>>> >> way. This patch avoids this by stop polling socket during rx
>>> >> processing. A small drawback is that this introduces some overheads in
>>> >> light load case because of the extra start/stop polling, but single
>>> >> netperf TCP_RR does not notice any change. In a super heavy load case,
>>> >> e.g using pktgen to inject packet to guest, we get about ~17%
>>> >> improvement on pps:
>>> >>
>>> >> before: ~1370000 pkt/s
>>> >> after:  ~1500000 pkt/s
>>> >>
>>> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>> > Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
>> >
>> > There is one other possible enhancement: we actually have the wait queue
>> > lock taken in _wake_up, but we give it up only to take it again in the
>> > handler.
>> >
>> > It would be nicer to just remove the entry when we wake
>> > the vhost thread. Re-add it if required.
>> > I think that something like the below would give you the necessary API.
>> > Pls feel free to use it if you are going to implement a patch on top
>> > doing this - that's not a reason not to include this simple patch
>> > though.
> Thanks, this looks useful, will give it a try.

Want to try, but looks like this will result a strange API:

- poll were removed automatically during wakeup, handler does not need
to care about this
- but handler still need to re-add the poll explicitly in the code

?