[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EDB5EF0.2010909@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2011 13:52:16 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
CC: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
markmc@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio-ring: Use threshold for switching to indirect
descriptors
On 12/03/2011 01:50 PM, Sasha Levin wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 11:16 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:26:42 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 10:09:37AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 09:58 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > > We'll presumably need some logic to increment is back,
> > > > > to account for random workload changes.
> > > > > Something like slow start?
> > > >
> > > > We can increment it each time the queue was less than 10% full, it
> > > > should act like slow start, no?
> > >
> > > No, we really shouldn't get an empty ring as long as things behave
> > > well. What I meant is something like:
> >
> > I was thinking of the network output case, but you're right. We need to
> > distinguish between usually full (eg. virtio-net input) and usually
> > empty (eg. virtio-net output).
> >
> > The signal for "we to pack more into the ring" is different. We could
> > use some hacky heuristic like "out == 0" but I'd rather make it explicit
> > when we set up the virtqueue.
> >
> > Our other alternative, moving the logic to the driver, is worse.
> >
> > As to fading the effect over time, that's harder. We have to deplete
> > the ring quite a few times before it turns into always-indirect. We
> > could back off every time the ring is totally idle, but that may hurt
> > bursty traffic. Let's try simple first?
>
> I tried to take a different approach, and tried putting the indirect
> descriptors in a kmem_cache as Michael suggested. The benchmarks showed
> that this way virtio-net actually worked faster with indirect on even in
> a single stream.
How much better?
I think that if indirects benefit networking, then we're doing something
wrong. What's going on? Does the ring get filled too early? If so we
should expand it.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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