[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e32caceb-f7f1-ee76-2b74-711e4f44e88f@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 19:59:41 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
Cc: makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp, mst@...hat.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Tonghao Zhang <zhangtonghao@...ichuxing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 3/4] net: vhost: factor out busy polling logic
to vhost_net_busy_poll()
On 2018年07月04日 17:46, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 5:18 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018年07月04日 15:59, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>>> On 2018/07/04 13:31, xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com wrote:
>>> ...
>>>> +static void vhost_net_busy_poll(struct vhost_net *net,
>>>> + struct vhost_virtqueue *rvq,
>>>> + struct vhost_virtqueue *tvq,
>>>> + bool rx)
>>>> +{
>>>> + unsigned long uninitialized_var(endtime);
>>>> + unsigned long busyloop_timeout;
>>>> + struct socket *sock;
>>>> + struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = rx ? tvq : rvq;
>>>> +
>>>> + mutex_lock_nested(&vq->mutex, rx ? VHOST_NET_VQ_TX: VHOST_NET_VQ_RX);
>>>> +
>>>> + vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, vq);
>>>> + sock = rvq->private_data;
>>>> + busyloop_timeout = rx ? rvq->busyloop_timeout : tvq->busyloop_timeout;
>>>> +
>>>> + preempt_disable();
>>>> + endtime = busy_clock() + busyloop_timeout;
>>>> + while (vhost_can_busy_poll(tvq->dev, endtime) &&
>>>> + !(sock && sk_has_rx_data(sock->sk)) &&
>>>> + vhost_vq_avail_empty(tvq->dev, tvq))
>>>> + cpu_relax();
>>>> + preempt_enable();
>>>> +
>>>> + if ((rx && !vhost_vq_avail_empty(&net->dev, vq)) ||
>>>> + (!rx && (sock && sk_has_rx_data(sock->sk)))) {
>>>> + vhost_poll_queue(&vq->poll);
>>>> + } else if (vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, vq) && rx) {
>>> Hmm... on tx here sock has no rx data, so you are waiting for sock
>>> wakeup for rx and vhost_enable_notify() seems not needed. Do you want
>>> this actually?
>>>
>>> } else if (rx && vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, vq)) {
>> Right, rx need to be checked first here.
> thanks, if we dont call the vhost_enable_notify for tx. so we dont
> need to call vhost_disable_notify for tx?
>
> @@ -451,7 +451,9 @@ static void vhost_net_busy_poll(struct vhost_net *net,
> tvq->busyloop_timeout;
>
> mutex_lock_nested(&vq->mutex, rx ? VHOST_NET_VQ_TX: VHOST_NET_VQ_RX);
> - vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, vq);
> +
> + if (rx)
> + vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, vq);
>
> preempt_disable();
> endtime = busy_clock() + busyloop_timeout;
Sorry for being unclear. We need enable tx notification at end end of
the loop.
I meant we need replace
+ } else if (vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, vq) && rx) {
with
+ } else if (rx && vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, vq)) {
We only need rx notification when there's no avail buffers. This means
we need only enable notification for tx.
And maybe we can simplify the logic as
if (rx) {
......
} else {
......
}
here. (not a must).
Thanks
>
>> Thanks
>>
>>>> + vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, vq);
>>>> + vhost_poll_queue(&vq->poll);
>>>> + }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists