[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081009153035.GA21542@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 23:30:35 +0800
From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Mark McLoughlin <markmc@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] virtio_net: Improve the recv buffer allocation
scheme
On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 11:55:59AM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote:
>
> There are three approaches we should investigate before adding YA feature.
> Obviously, we can simply increase the number of ring entries.
That's not going to work so well as you need to increase the ring
size by MAX_SKB_FRAGS times to achieve the same level of effect.
Basically the current scheme is either going to suck at non-TSO
traffic or it's going to chew too much resources.
> Secondly, we can put the virtio_net_hdr at the head of the skb data (this is
> also worth considering for xmit I think if we have headroom) and drop
> MAX_SKB_FRAGS which contains a gratuitous +2.
That's fine but having skb->data in the ring still means two
different kinds of memory in there and it sucks when you only
have 1500-byte packets.
> Thirdly, we can try to coalesce contiguous buffers. The page caching scheme
> we have might help here, I don't know. Maybe we should be explicitly trying
> to allocate higher orders.
That's not really the key problem here. The problem here is
that the scheme we're currently using in virtio-net is simply
broken when it comes to 1500-byte sized packets. Most of the
entries on the ring buffer go to waste.
We need a scheme that handles both 1500-byte packets as well
as 64K-byte size ones, and without holding down 16M of memory
per guest.
> > The size of the logical buffer is
> > returned to the guest rather than the size of the individual smaller
> > buffers.
>
> That's a virtio transport breakage: can you use the standard virtio mechanism,
> just put the extended length or number of extra buffers inside the
> virtio_net_hdr?
Sure that sounds reasonable.
> > Make use of this support by supplying single page receive buffers to
> > the host. On receive, we extract the virtio_net_hdr, copy 128 bytes of
> > the payload to the skb's linear data buffer and adjust the fragment
> > offset to point to the remaining data. This ensures proper alignment
> > and allows us to not use any paged data for small packets. If the
> > payload occupies multiple pages, we simply append those pages as
> > fragments and free the associated skbs.
>
> > + char *p = page_address(skb_shinfo(skb)->frags[0].page);
> ...
> > + memcpy(hdr, p, sizeof(*hdr));
> > + p += sizeof(*hdr);
>
> I think you need kmap_atomic() here to access the page. And yes, that will
> effect performance :(
No we don't. kmap would only be necessary for highmem which we
did not request.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists