[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1285771025.31343.11.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 07:37:05 -0700
From: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
"Xin, Xiaohui" <xiaohui.xin@...el.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] macvtap: TX zero copy between guest and host
kernel
On Wed, 2010-09-29 at 10:16 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > I compared several approaches for addressing the issue being raised
> here
> > on how/when to update vhost_add_used_and_signal. The simple approach
> I
> > have found is:
> >
> > 1. Adding completion field in struct virtqueue;
> > 2. when it is a zero copy packet, put vhost thread wait for
> completion
> > to update vhost_add_used_and_signal;
> > 3. passing vq from vhost to macvtap as skb destruct_arg;
> > 4. when skb is freed for the last reference, signal vq completion
> > The test results show same performance as the original patch. How do
> you
> > think? If it sounds good to you. I will resubmit this reversion
> patch.
> > The patch still keeps as simple as it was before. :)
> >
> > Thanks
> > Shirley
>
> If you look at dev_hard_start_xmit you will see a call
> to skb_orphan_try which often calls the skb destructor.
> So I suspect this is almost equivalent to your original patch,
> and has the same correctness issue.
If I didn't address this, then vhost net will wait for ever with wait
for completion :))
Thanks
Shirley
--
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