Date:	Mon, 30 May 2016 17:59:33 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] skb_array: array based FIFO for skbs



On 2016年05月23日 18:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> This is in response to the proposal by Jason to make tun
> rx packet queue lockless using a circular buffer.
> My testing seems to show that at least for the common usecase
> in networking, which isn't lockless, circular buffer
> with indices does not perform that well, because
> each index access causes a cache line to bounce between
> CPUs, and index access causes stalls due to the dependency.
>
> By comparison, an array of pointers where NULL means invalid
> and !NULL means valid, can be updated without messing up barriers
> at all and does not have this issue.
>
> On the flip side, cache pressure may be caused by using large queues.
> tun has a queue of 1000 entries by default and that's 8K.
> At this point I'm not sure this can be solved efficiently.
> The correct solution might be sizing the queues appropriately.
>
> Here's an implementation of this idea: it can be used more
> or less whenever sk_buff_head can be used, except you need
> to know the queue size in advance.
>
> It's using skb pointers but we switching to void * would be easy at cost
> of type safety, though it appears that people want lockless  push
> etc so I'm not sure of the value.
>
> I didn't implement resizing but it's possible by holding
> both consumer and producer locks.
>
> I think this code works fine without any extra memory barriers since we
> always read and write the same location, so the accesses can not be
> reordered.
> Multiple writes of the same value into memory would mess things up
> for us, I don't think compilers would do it though.
> But if people feel it's better to be safe wrt compiler optimizations,
> specifying queue as volatile would probably do it in a cleaner way
> than converting all accesses to READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE. Thoughts?
>
> The only issue is with calls within a loop using the __skb_array_XXX
> accessors - in theory compiler could hoist accesses out of the loop.
>
> Following volatile-considered-harmful.txt I merely
> documented that callers that busy-poll should invoke cpu_relax().
> Most people will use the external skb_array_XXX APIs with a spinlock,
> so this should not be an issue for them.
>
> changes since v4 (v3 was never posted)
> 	documentation
> 	dropped SKB_ARRAY_MIN_SIZE heuristic
> 	unit test (in userspace, included as patch 2)
>
> changes since v2:
>          fixed integer overflow pointed out by Eric.
>          added some comments.
>
> changes since v1:
>          fixed bug pointed out by Eric.
>
>
> Michael S. Tsirkin (2):
>    skb_array: array based FIFO for skbs
>    skb_array: ring test
>
>   include/linux/skb_array.h         | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   tools/virtio/ringtest/skb_array.c | 167 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   tools/virtio/ringtest/Makefile    |   4 +-
>   3 files changed, 297 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>   create mode 100644 include/linux/skb_array.h
>   create mode 100644 tools/virtio/ringtest/skb_array.c
>

I change tun to use skb array, looks like it can give about 5% more 
faster than skb ring.

And we usually don't need touch bhs during consume and produce (e.g for 
the case of tun).

Thanks

Powered by blists - more mailing lists