[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5199AABF.6090801@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 12:46:55 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Qinchuanyu <qinchuanyu@...wei.com>
CC: "rusty@...tcorp.com.au" <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
"mst@...hat.com" <mst@...hat.com>,
"dhowells@...hat.com" <dhowells@...hat.com>,
"(kvm@...r.kernel.org)" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"(netdev@...r.kernel.org)" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Heguansen <heguansen@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vhost: get 2% performance improved by reducing spin_lock
race in vhost_work_queue
On 05/20/2013 12:22 PM, Qinchuanyu wrote:
> The patch below is base on
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/vhost/vhost.c?id=refs/tags/next-20130517
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin <qinchuanyu@...wei.com>
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 11:47:05.000000000 +0800
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 11:48:24.000000000 +0800
> @@ -154,9 +154,10 @@
> if (list_empty(&work->node)) {
> list_add_tail(&work->node, &dev->work_list);
> work->queue_seq++;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
> wake_up_process(dev->worker);
> - }
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
> + } else
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
> }
>
> void vhost_poll_queue(struct vhost_poll *poll)
>
> I did the test by using iperf in 10G environment, the test num as below:
> orignal modified
> thread_num tp(Gbps) vhost(%) | tp(Gbps) vhost(%)
> 1 9.59 28.82 | 9.59 27.49
> 8 9.61 32.92 | 9.62 26.77
> 64 9.58 46.48 | 9.55 38.99
> 256 9.6 63.7 | 9.6 52.59
>
> The cost of vhost reduced while the throughput is almost unchanged.
Thanks, and please generate a formal patch based on
Documentation/SubmittingPatches (put the description and perf numbers in
the commit log). Then resubmit it to let the maintainer apply it.
>
> On 05/20/2013 11:06 AM, Qinchuanyu wrote:
>> Right now the wake_up_process func is included in spin_lock/unlock, but it could be done outside the spin_lock.
>> I have test it with kernel 3.0.27 and guest suse11-sp2, it provide 2%-3% net performance improved.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin <qinchuanyu@...wei.com>
> Make sense to me but need generate a patch against net-next.git or
> vhost.git in git.kernel.org.
>
> Btw. How did you test this? Care to share the perf numbers?
>
> Thanks
>> mu
>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 10:36:30.000000000 +0800
>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 10:36:54.000000000 +0800
>> @@ -144,9 +144,10 @@
>> if (list_empty(&work->node)) {
>> list_add_tail(&work->node, &dev->work_list);
>> work->queue_seq++;
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
>> wake_up_process(dev->worker);
>> - }
>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
>> + } else
>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
>> }
>>
>> void vhost_poll_queue(struct vhost_poll *poll)
>> --
>> 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
> N�����r��y���b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+���z�^�)���w*.jg���.�����ݢj/���z�ޖ��2�ޙ���&�)ߡ�a����.�G���h�.�j:+v���w�٥
--
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