Message-ID: <96819b6a-6d44-fd7e-37af-5a0db81b3840@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 4 Sep 2017 11:03:09 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Cc:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
        Koichiro Den <den@...ipeden.com>,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio-net: invoke zerocopy callback on xmit
 path if no tx napi



On 2017年09月02日 00:17, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>>>> This is not a 50/50 split, which impliesTw that some packets from the
>>>> large
>>>> packet flow are still converted to copying. Without the change the rate
>>>> without queue was 80k zerocopy vs 80k copy, so this choice of
>>>> (vq->num >> 2) appears too conservative.
>>>>
>>>> However, testing with (vq->num >> 1) was not as effective at mitigating
>>>> stalls. I did not save that data, unfortunately. Can run more tests on
>>>> fine
>>>> tuning this variable, if the idea sounds good.
>>>
>>> Looks like there're still two cases were left:
>> To be clear, this patch is not intended to fix all issues. It is a small
>> improvement to avoid HoL blocking due to queued zerocopy skbs.

Right, just want to see if there's anything left.

>>
>> The trade-off is that reverting to copying in these cases increases
>> cycle cost. I think that that is a trade-off worth making compared to
>> the alternative drop in throughput. It probably would be good to be
>> able to measure this without kernel instrumentation: export
>> counters similar to net->tx_zcopy_err and net->tx_packets (though
>> without reset to zero, as in vhost_net_tx_packet).

I think it's acceptable if extra cycles were spent if we detect HOL anyhow.

>>
>>> 1) sndbuf is not INT_MAX
>> You mean the case where the device stalls, later zerocopy notifications
>> are queued, but these are never cleaned in free_old_xmit_skbs,
>> because it requires a start_xmit and by now the (only) socket is out of
>> descriptors?
> Typo, sorry. I meant out of sndbuf.

I mean e.g for tun. If its sndbuf is smaller than e.g (vq->num >> 1) * 
$pkt_size and if all packet were held by some modules, limitation like 
vq->num >> 1 won't work since we hit sudbuf before it.

>
>> A watchdog would help somewhat. With tx-napi, this case cannot occur,
>> either, as free_old_xmit_skbs no longer depends on a call to start_xmit.
>>
>>> 2) tx napi is used for virtio-net
>> I am not aware of any issue specific to the use of tx-napi?

Might not be clear here, I mean e.g virtio_net (tx-napi) in guest + 
vhost_net (zerocopy) in host. In this case, even if we switch to 
datacopy if ubuf counts exceeds vq->num >> 1, we still complete tx 
buffers in order, tx interrupt could be delayed for indefinite time.

>>
>>> 1) could be a corner case, and for 2) what your suggest here may not solve
>>> the issue since it still do in order completion.
>> Somewhat tangential, but it might also help to break the in-order
>> completion processing in vhost_zerocopy_signal_used. Complete
>> all descriptors between done_idx and upend_idx. done_idx should
>> then only be forward to the oldest still not-completed descriptor.
>>
>> In the test I ran, where the oldest descriptors are held in a queue and
>> all newer ones are tail-dropped,

Do you mean the descriptors were tail-dropped by vhost?

>> this would avoid blocking a full ring
>> of completions, when only a small number (or 1) is actually delayed.
>>
>> Dynamic switching between copy and zerocopy using zcopy_used
>> already returns completions out-of-order, so this is not a huge leap.

Yes.

Thanks

Powered by blists - more mailing lists