[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1386671136.11925.46.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:25:36 +0000
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@...rix.com>
CC: <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] xen-netback: fix abuse of napi budget
On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 10:16 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> netback seemed to be somewhat confused about the napi budget parameter and
> basically ignored it. This patch fixes that, properly limiting the work done
> in each poll.
What do you mean "ignored", xenvif_tx_submit seems to be tracking and
testing work_done against the budget.
I suspect this change is probably worthwhile but it would be good to get
an accurate description of why, which I presume is because the tx
process is xenvif_tx_build_gops followed by, gnttab_batch_copy then
xenvif_tx_submit and that it is better to do the budget enforcement
earlier on.
How does this change impact the batching in gnttab_batch_copy and
therefore performance? Do we need to tweak the the NAPI budget to ensure
we are getting good batching? I suspect that netback is a bit unusual
among NIC drivers in that the rx path contains a fair bit of actual work
to do, so perhaps the NAPI defaults are not necessarily going to be the
best for it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@...rix.com>
> Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
> Cc: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
> Cc: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c | 14 +++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> index 43341b8..83b4e5b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> @@ -1351,14 +1351,15 @@ static bool tx_credit_exceeded(struct xenvif *vif, unsigned size)
> return false;
> }
>
> -static unsigned xenvif_tx_build_gops(struct xenvif *vif)
> +static unsigned xenvif_tx_build_gops(struct xenvif *vif, int budget)
> {
> struct gnttab_copy *gop = vif->tx_copy_ops, *request_gop;
> struct sk_buff *skb;
> int ret;
>
> while ((nr_pending_reqs(vif) + XEN_NETBK_LEGACY_SLOTS_MAX
> - < MAX_PENDING_REQS)) {
> + < MAX_PENDING_REQS) &&
> + (skb_queue_len(&vif->tx_queue) < budget)) {
> struct xen_netif_tx_request txreq;
> struct xen_netif_tx_request txfrags[XEN_NETBK_LEGACY_SLOTS_MAX];
> struct page *page;
> @@ -1520,14 +1521,13 @@ static unsigned xenvif_tx_build_gops(struct xenvif *vif)
> }
>
>
> -static int xenvif_tx_submit(struct xenvif *vif, int budget)
> +static int xenvif_tx_submit(struct xenvif *vif)
> {
> struct gnttab_copy *gop = vif->tx_copy_ops;
> struct sk_buff *skb;
> int work_done = 0;
>
> - while (work_done < budget &&
> - (skb = __skb_dequeue(&vif->tx_queue)) != NULL) {
> + while ((skb = __skb_dequeue(&vif->tx_queue)) != NULL) {
> struct xen_netif_tx_request *txp;
> u16 pending_idx;
> unsigned data_len;
> @@ -1602,14 +1602,14 @@ int xenvif_tx_action(struct xenvif *vif, int budget)
> if (unlikely(!tx_work_todo(vif)))
> return 0;
>
> - nr_gops = xenvif_tx_build_gops(vif);
> + nr_gops = xenvif_tx_build_gops(vif, budget);
>
> if (nr_gops == 0)
> return 0;
>
> gnttab_batch_copy(vif->tx_copy_ops, nr_gops);
>
> - work_done = xenvif_tx_submit(vif, nr_gops);
> + work_done = xenvif_tx_submit(vif);
>
> return work_done;
> }
--
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