netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 5/5] vhost_net: basic tx virtqueue batched processing

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20170928011724-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2017 01:19:40 +0300
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc:     virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next RFC 5/5] vhost_net: basic tx virtqueue batched
 processing

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:04:18AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2017年09月27日 03:25, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 04:02:35PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > This patch implements basic batched processing of tx virtqueue by
> > > prefetching desc indices and updating used ring in a batch. For
> > > non-zerocopy case, vq->heads were used for storing the prefetched
> > > indices and updating used ring. It is also a requirement for doing
> > > more batching on top. For zerocopy case and for simplicity, batched
> > > processing were simply disabled by only fetching and processing one
> > > descriptor at a time, this could be optimized in the future.
> > > 
> > > XDP_DROP (without touching skb) on tun (with Moongen in guest) with
> > > zercopy disabled:
> > > 
> > > Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 0 @ 2.00GHz:
> > > Before: 3.20Mpps
> > > After:  3.90Mpps (+22%)
> > > 
> > > No differences were seen with zerocopy enabled.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> > So where is the speedup coming from? I'd guess the ring is
> > hot in cache, it's faster to access it in one go, then
> > pass many packets to net stack. Is that right?
> > 
> > Another possibility is better code cache locality.
> 
> Yes, I think the speed up comes from:
> 
> - less cache misses
> - less cache line bounce when virtqueue is about to be full (guest is faster
> than host which is the case of MoonGen)
> - less memory barriers
> - possible faster copy speed by using copy_to_user() on modern CPUs
> 
> > 
> > So how about this patchset is refactored:
> > 
> > 1. use existing APIs just first get packets then
> >     transmit them all then use them all
> 
> Looks like current API can not get packets first, it only support get packet
> one by one (if you mean vhost_get_vq_desc()). And used ring updating may get
> more misses in this case.

Right. So if you do

for (...)
	vhost_get_vq_desc


then later

for (...)
	vhost_add_used


then you get most of benefits except maybe code cache misses
and copy_to_user.







> > 2. add new APIs and move the loop into vhost core
> >     for more speedups
> 
> I don't see any advantages, looks like just need some e.g callbacks in this
> case.
> 
> Thanks

IUC callbacks pretty much destroy the code cache locality advantages,
IP is jumping around too much.


-- 
MST