[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101029081027.GB22688@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:10:27 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/1] vhost: TX used buffer guest signal accumulation
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:14:22AM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
>
> > Two ideas:
> > 1. How about writing out used, just delaying the signal?
> > This way we don't have to queue separately.
>
> This improves some performance, but not as good as delaying
> both used and signal. Since delaying used buffers combining
> multiple small copies to a large copy, which saves more CPU
> utilization and increased some BW.
Hmm. I don't yet understand. We are still doing copies into the per-vq
buffer, and the data copied is really small. Is it about cache line
bounces? Could you try figuring it out?
> > 2. How about flushing out queued stuff before we exit
> > the handle_tx loop? That would address most of
> > the spec issue.
>
> The performance is almost as same as the previous patch. I will resubmit
> the modified one, adding vhost_add_used_and_signal_n after handle_tx
> loop for processing pending queue.
>
> This patch was a part of modified macvtap zero copy which I haven't
> submitted yet. I found this helped vhost TX in general. This pending
> queue will be used by DMA done later, so I put it in vq instead of a
> local variable in handle_tx.
>
> Thanks
> Shirley
BTW why do we need another array? Isn't heads field exactly what we need
here?
--
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