[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <36c95dd6babb2202f70594d5dde13493af62dcad.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 10:42:34 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: longli@...uxonhyperv.com, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Leon
Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>, Ajay Sharma <sharmaajay@...rosoft.com>,
Dexuan Cui <decui@...rosoft.com>, "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@...nel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet
<edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Long Li
<longli@...rosoft.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v3] net: mana: Batch ringing RX queue doorbell on
receiving packets
On Mon, 2023-06-26 at 16:57 -0700, longli@...uxonhyperv.com wrote:
> From: Long Li <longli@...rosoft.com>
>
> It's inefficient to ring the doorbell page every time a WQE is posted to
> the received queue. Excessive MMIO writes result in CPU spending more
> time waiting on LOCK instructions (atomic operations), resulting in
> poor scaling performance.
>
> Move the code for ringing doorbell page to where after we have posted all
> WQEs to the receive queue during a callback from napi_poll().
>
> With this change, tests showed an improvement from 120G/s to 160G/s on a
> 200G physical link, with 16 or 32 hardware queues.
>
> Tests showed no regression in network latency benchmarks on single
> connection.
>
> While we are making changes in this code path, change the code for
> ringing doorbell to set the WQE_COUNT to 0 for Receive Queue. The
> hardware specification specifies that it should set to 0. Although
> currently the hardware doesn't enforce the check, in the future releases
> it may do.
>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Fixes: ca9c54d2d6a5 ("net: mana: Add a driver for Microsoft Azure Network Adapter (MANA)")
Uhmmm... this looks like a performance improvement to me, more suitable
for the net-next tree ?!? (Note that net-next is closed now).
In any case you must avoid empty lines in the tag area.
If you really intend targeting the -net tree, please repost fixing the
above and explicitly specifying the target tree in the subj prefix.
thanks!
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists