netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 3/4] net: vhost: factor out busy polling logic to vhost_net_busy

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <dcf8d987-6e60-76e6-44a1-e61c5b7a121b@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:16:59 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     Tonghao Zhang <xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>,
        makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp
Cc:     toshiaki.makita1@...il.com, mst@...hat.com,
        virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 3/4] net: vhost: factor out busy polling logic
 to vhost_net_busy_poll()



On 2018年07月24日 11:28, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 10:53 AM Toshiaki Makita
> <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>  wrote:
>> On 2018/07/24 2:31, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 10:20 PM Toshiaki Makita
>>> <toshiaki.makita1@...il.com>  wrote:
>>>> On 18/07/23 (月) 21:43, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 5:58 PM Toshiaki Makita
>>>>> <makita.toshiaki@....ntt.co.jp>  wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018/07/22 3:04,xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com  wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Tonghao Zhang<xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Factor out generic busy polling logic and will be
>>>>>>> used for in tx path in the next patch. And with the patch,
>>>>>>> qemu can set differently the busyloop_timeout for rx queue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tonghao Zhang<xiangxia.m.yue@...il.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> +static void vhost_net_busy_poll_vq_check(struct vhost_net *net,
>>>>>>> +                                      struct vhost_virtqueue *rvq,
>>>>>>> +                                      struct vhost_virtqueue *tvq,
>>>>>>> +                                      bool rx)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +     struct socket *sock = rvq->private_data;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +     if (rx) {
>>>>>>> +             if (!vhost_vq_avail_empty(&net->dev, tvq)) {
>>>>>>> +                     vhost_poll_queue(&tvq->poll);
>>>>>>> +             } else if (unlikely(vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, tvq))) {
>>>>>>> +                     vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, tvq);
>>>>>>> +                     vhost_poll_queue(&tvq->poll);
>>>>>>> +             }
>>>>>>> +     } else if ((sock && sk_has_rx_data(sock->sk)) &&
>>>>>>> +                 !vhost_vq_avail_empty(&net->dev, rvq)) {
>>>>>>> +             vhost_poll_queue(&rvq->poll);
>>>>>> Now we wait for vq_avail for rx as well, I think you cannot skip
>>>>>> vhost_enable_notify() on tx. Probably you might want to do:
>>>>> I think vhost_enable_notify is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> } else if (sock && sk_has_rx_data(sock->sk)) {
>>>>>>           if (!vhost_vq_avail_empty(&net->dev, rvq)) {
>>>>>>                   vhost_poll_queue(&rvq->poll);
>>>>>>           } else if (unlikely(vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, rvq))) {
>>>>>>                   vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, rvq);
>>>>>>                   vhost_poll_queue(&rvq->poll);
>>>>>>           }
>>>>>> }
>>>>> As Jason review as before, we only want rx kick when packet is pending at
>>>>> socket but we're out of available buffers. So we just enable notify,
>>>>> but not poll it ?
>>>>>
>>>>>           } else if ((sock && sk_has_rx_data(sock->sk)) &&
>>>>>                       !vhost_vq_avail_empty(&net->dev, rvq)) {
>>>>>                   vhost_poll_queue(&rvq->poll);
>>>>>           else {
>>>>>                   vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, rvq);
>>>>>           }
>>>> When vhost_enable_notify() returns true the avail becomes non-empty
>>>> while we are enabling notify. We may delay the rx process if we don't
>>>> check the return value of vhost_enable_notify().
>>> I got it thanks.
>>>>>> Also it's better to care vhost_net_disable_vq()/vhost_net_enable_vq() on tx?
>>>>> I cant find why it is better, if necessary, we can do it.
>>>> The reason is pretty simple... we are busypolling the socket so we don't
>>>> need rx wakeups during it?
>>> OK, but one question, how about rx? do we use the
>>> vhost_net_disable_vq/vhost_net_ensable_vq on rx ?
>> If we are busypolling the sock tx buf? I'm not sure if polling it
>> improves the performance.
> Not the sock tx buff, when we are busypolling in handle_rx, we will
> check the tx vring via  vhost_vq_avail_empty.
> So, should we the disable tvq, e.g. vhost_net_disable_vq(net, tvq)?> --

This could be done on top since tx wakeups only happnes when we run out 
of sndbuf.

Thanks