[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220114080205.ls4txgj7qbqmc3q5@steredhat>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 09:02:05 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] vhost: cache avail index in vhost_enable_notify()
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 02:18:01PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:57 PM Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com> wrote:
>>
>> In vhost_enable_notify() we enable the notifications and we read
>> the avail index to check if new buffers have become available in
>> the meantime. In this case, the device would go to re-read avail
>> index to access the descriptor.
>>
>> As we already do in other place, we can cache the value in `avail_idx`
>> and compare it with `last_avail_idx` to check if there are new
>> buffers available.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
>
>Patch looks fine but I guess we won't get performance improvement
>since it doesn't save any userspace/VM memory access?
It should save the memory access when vhost_enable_notify() find
something new in the VQ, so in this path:
vhost_enable_notify() <- VM memory access for avail index
== true
vhost_disable_notify()
...
vhost_get_vq_desc() <- VM memory access for avail index
with the patch applied, this access is
avoided since avail index is cached
In any case, I don't expect this to be a very common path, indeed we
usually use unlikely() for this path:
if (unlikely(vhost_enable_notify(dev, vq))) {
vhost_disable_notify(dev, vq);
continue;
}
So I don't expect a significant performance increase.
v1 coming with a better commit description.
Thanks,
Stefano
Powered by blists - more mailing lists