[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FBCBC88.70707@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 18:31:36 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Shirley Ma <mashirle@...ibm.com>
CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ebiederm@...ssion.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [V2 PATCH 9/9] vhost: zerocopy: poll vq in zerocopy callback
On 05/22/2012 11:55 PM, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 18:05 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 05/21/2012 11:42 PM, Shirley Ma wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 14:05 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> - tx polling depends on skb_orphan() which is often called by
>>>> device
>>>>>> driver when it place the packet into the queue of the devices
>>>> instead
>>>>>> of when the packets were sent. So it was too early for vhost to
>> be
>>>>>> notified.
>>>>> Then do you think it's better to replace with vhost_poll_queue
>> here
>>>>> instead?
>>>> Just like what does this patch do - calling vhost_poll_queue() in
>>>> vhost_zerocopy_callback().
>>>>>> - it only works when the pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND,
>> it's
>>>>>> highly possible that guest needs to be notified when the pending
>>>>>> packets
>>>>>> isn't so much.
>>>>> In which situation the guest needs to be notified when there is no
>>>> TX
>>>>> besides buffers run out?
>>>> Consider guest call virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed() which means it
>> only
>>>> need to be notified when 3/4 of pending buffers ( about 178 buffers
>>>> (256-MAX_SKB_FRAGS-2)*3/4 ) were sent by host. So vhost_net would
>>>> notify
>>>> guest when about 60 buffers were pending. Since tx polling is only
>>>> enabled when pending packets exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND 128, so tx work
>>>> would not be notified to run and guest would never get the
>> interrupt
>>>> it
>>>> expected to re-enable the queue.
>>> So it seems we still need vhost_enable_notify() in handle_tx when
>> there
>>> is no tx in zerocopy case.
>>>
>>> Do you know which one is more expensive: the cost of
>> vhost_poll_queue()
>>> in each zerocopy callback or calling vhost_enable_notify()?
>> Didn't follow here, do you mean vhost_signal() here?
> I meant removing the code in handle_tx for zerocopy as below:
>
> + if (zcopy) {
> /* If more outstanding DMAs, queue the work.
> * Handle upend_idx wrap around
> */
> num_pends = likely(vq->upend_idx>= vq->done_idx) ?
> (vq->upend_idx - vq->done_idx) :
> (vq->upend_idx + UIO_MAXIOV - vq->done_idx);
> + /* zerocopy vhost_enable_notify is under zerocopy callback
> + * since it could be too early to notify here */
> + break;
> + }
> - if (unlikely(num_pends> VHOST_MAX_PEND)) {
> - tx_poll_start(net, sock);
> - set_bit(SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE,&sock->flags);
> - break;
> - }
> if (unlikely(vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, vq))) {
> vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, vq);
> continue;
> }
> break;
Didn't think this can work well as the notification from guest were
disabled forever.
>
> Thanks
> Shirley
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists