[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56A03E57.2020400@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 10:11:35 +0800
From: Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@...il.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 3/3] vhost_net: basic polling support
On 2016/1/20 22:35, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 02:39:45PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> This patch tries to poll for new added tx buffer or socket receive
>> queue for a while at the end of tx/rx processing. The maximum time
>> spent on polling were specified through a new kind of vring ioctl.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/vhost/net.c | 72 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>> drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 15 ++++++++++
>> drivers/vhost/vhost.h | 1 +
>> include/uapi/linux/vhost.h | 11 +++++++
>> 4 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> index 9eda69e..ce6da77 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> @@ -287,6 +287,41 @@ static void vhost_zerocopy_callback(struct ubuf_info *ubuf, bool success)
>> rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>> }
>>
>> +static inline unsigned long busy_clock(void)
>> +{
>> + return local_clock() >> 10;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static bool vhost_can_busy_poll(struct vhost_dev *dev,
>> + unsigned long endtime)
>> +{
>> + return likely(!need_resched()) &&
>> + likely(!time_after(busy_clock(), endtime)) &&
>> + likely(!signal_pending(current)) &&
>> + !vhost_has_work(dev) &&
>> + single_task_running();
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int vhost_net_tx_get_vq_desc(struct vhost_net *net,
>> + struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
>> + struct iovec iov[], unsigned int iov_size,
>> + unsigned int *out_num, unsigned int *in_num)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long uninitialized_var(endtime);
>> +
>> + if (vq->busyloop_timeout) {
>> + preempt_disable();
>> + endtime = busy_clock() + vq->busyloop_timeout;
>> + while (vhost_can_busy_poll(vq->dev, endtime) &&
>> + !vhost_vq_more_avail(vq->dev, vq))
>> + cpu_relax();
>> + preempt_enable();
>> + }
>
> Isn't there a way to call all this after vhost_get_vq_desc?
> First, this will reduce the good path overhead as you
> won't have to play with timers and preemption.
>
> Second, this will reduce the chance of a pagefault on avail ring read.
>
>> +
>> + return vhost_get_vq_desc(vq, vq->iov, ARRAY_SIZE(vq->iov),
>> + out_num, in_num, NULL, NULL);
>> +}
>> +
>> /* Expects to be always run from workqueue - which acts as
>> * read-size critical section for our kind of RCU. */
>> static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> @@ -331,10 +366,9 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> % UIO_MAXIOV == nvq->done_idx))
>> break;
>>
>> - head = vhost_get_vq_desc(vq, vq->iov,
>> - ARRAY_SIZE(vq->iov),
>> - &out, &in,
>> - NULL, NULL);
>> + head = vhost_net_tx_get_vq_desc(net, vq, vq->iov,
>> + ARRAY_SIZE(vq->iov),
>> + &out, &in);
>> /* On error, stop handling until the next kick. */
>> if (unlikely(head < 0))
>> break;
>> @@ -435,6 +469,34 @@ static int peek_head_len(struct sock *sk)
>> return len;
>> }
>>
>> +static int vhost_net_peek_head_len(struct vhost_net *net, struct sock *sk)
>
> Need a hint that it's rx related in the name.
>
>> +{
>> + struct vhost_net_virtqueue *nvq = &net->vqs[VHOST_NET_VQ_TX];
>> + struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &nvq->vq;
>> + unsigned long uninitialized_var(endtime);
>> +
>> + if (vq->busyloop_timeout) {
>> + mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
>
> This appears to be called under vq mutex in handle_rx.
> So how does this work then?
>
>
>> + vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, vq);
>
> This appears to be called after disable notify
> in handle_rx - so why disable here again?
>
>> +
>> + preempt_disable();
>> + endtime = busy_clock() + vq->busyloop_timeout;
>> +
>> + while (vhost_can_busy_poll(&net->dev, endtime) &&
>> + skb_queue_empty(&sk->sk_receive_queue) &&
>> + !vhost_vq_more_avail(&net->dev, vq))
>> + cpu_relax();
>
> This seems to mix in several items.
> RX queue is normally not empty. I don't think
> we need to poll for that.
I have seen the RX queue is easy to be empty under some extreme
conditions like lots of small packet. So maybe the check is useful here.
--
best regards
yang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists