linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next V5 0/9] vhost

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <20170517235738-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 17 May 2017 23:59:57 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V5 0/9] vhost_net rx batch dequeuing

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:14:36PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> This series tries to implement rx batching for vhost-net. This is done
> by batching the dequeuing from skb_array which was exported by
> underlayer socket and pass the sbk back through msg_control to finish
> userspace copying. This is also the requirement for more batching
> implemention on rx path.
> 
> Tests shows at most 7.56% improvment bon rx pps on top of batch
> zeroing and no obvious changes for TCP_STREAM/TCP_RR result.
> 
> Please review.
> 
> Thanks

A surprisingly large gain for such as simple change.  It would be nice
to understand better why this helps - in particular, does the optimal
batch size change if ring is bigger or smaller? But let's merge it
meanwhile.

Series:

Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>



> Changes from V4:
> - drop batch zeroing patch
> - renew the performance numbers
> - move skb pointer array out of vhost_net structure
> 
> Changes from V3:
> - add batch zeroing patch to fix the build warnings
> 
> Changes from V2:
> - rebase to net-next HEAD
> - use unconsume helpers to put skb back on releasing
> - introduce and use vhost_net internal buffer helpers
> - renew performance numbers on top of batch zeroing
> 
> Changes from V1:
> - switch to use for() in __ptr_ring_consume_batched()
> - rename peek_head_len_batched() to fetch_skbs()
> - use skb_array_consume_batched() instead of
>   skb_array_consume_batched_bh() since no consumer run in bh
> - drop the lockless peeking patch since skb_array could be resized, so
>   it's not safe to call lockless one
> 
> Jason Wang (8):
>   skb_array: introduce skb_array_unconsume
>   ptr_ring: introduce batch dequeuing
>   skb_array: introduce batch dequeuing
>   tun: export skb_array
>   tap: export skb_array
>   tun: support receiving skb through msg_control
>   tap: support receiving skb from msg_control
>   vhost_net: try batch dequing from skb array
> 
> Michael S. Tsirkin (1):
>   ptr_ring: add ptr_ring_unconsume
> 
>  drivers/net/tap.c         |  25 +++++++--
>  drivers/net/tun.c         |  31 ++++++++---
>  drivers/vhost/net.c       | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  include/linux/if_tap.h    |   5 ++
>  include/linux/if_tun.h    |   5 ++
>  include/linux/ptr_ring.h  | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/linux/skb_array.h |  31 +++++++++++
>  7 files changed, 327 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> -- 
> 2.7.4