linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 6/6] vhost_net: remove the max pending check

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <521AFD0F.7050906@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:00:31 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] vhost_net: remove the max pending check

On 08/25/2013 07:53 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 04:55:49PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 08/20/2013 10:48 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On 08/16/2013 06:02 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:16:30PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>> We used to limit the max pending DMAs to prevent guest from pinning too many
>>>>>>> pages. But this could be removed since:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - We have the sk_wmem_alloc check in both tun/macvtap to do the same work
>>>>>>> - This max pending check were almost useless since it was one done when there's
>>>>>>>   no new buffers coming from guest. Guest can easily exceeds the limitation.
>>>>>>> - We've already check upend_idx != done_idx and switch to non zerocopy then. So
>>>>>>>   even if all vq->heads were used, we can still does the packet transmission.
>>>>> We can but performance will suffer.
>>> The check were in fact only done when no new buffers submitted from
>>> guest. So if guest keep sending, the check won't be done.
>>>
>>> If we really want to do this, we should do it unconditionally. Anyway, I
>>> will do test to see the result.
>> There's a bug in PATCH 5/6, the check:
>>
>> nvq->upend_idx != nvq->done_idx
>>
>> makes the zerocopy always been disabled since we initialize both
>> upend_idx and done_idx to zero. So I change it to:
>>
>> (nvq->upend_idx + 1) % UIO_MAXIOV != nvq->done_idx.
> But what I would really like to try is limit ubuf_info to VHOST_MAX_PEND.
> I think this has a chance to improve performance since
> we'll be using less cache.

Maybe, but it in fact decrease the vq size to VHOST_MAX_PEND.
> Of course this means we must fix the code to really never submit
> more than VHOST_MAX_PEND requests.
>
> Want to try?

Ok, sure.
>> With this change on top, I didn't see performance difference w/ and w/o
>> this patch.
> Did you try small message sizes btw (like 1K)? Or just netperf
> default of 64K?
>

I just test multiple sessions of TCP_RR. Will test TCP_STREAM also.
--
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/