[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2ytwqkmnmp3ebdnhioevunpkyfe5nh2lcpitzggqeu4ptao7ry@ivxkicurl5ft>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 16:37:51 +0200
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Luigi Leonardi <luigi.leonardi@...look.com>
Cc: edumazet@...gle.com, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kuba@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, stefanha@...hat.com,
pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net, Marco Pinna <marco.pinn95@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] vsock/virtio: avoid enqueue packets when
work queue is empty
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 03:55:43PM GMT, Luigi Leonardi wrote:
>From: Marco Pinna <marco.pinn95@...il.com>
>
>This introduces an optimization in virtio_transport_send_pkt:
>when the work queue (send_pkt_queue) is empty the packet is
>put directly in the virtqueue reducing latency.
>
>In the following benchmark (pingpong mode) the host sends
>a payload to the guest and waits for the same payload back.
>
>Tool: Fio version 3.37-56
>Env: Phys host + L1 Guest
>Payload: 4k
>Runtime-per-test: 50s
>Mode: pingpong (h-g-h)
>Test runs: 50
>Type: SOCK_STREAM
>
>Before (Linux 6.8.11)
>------
>mean(1st percentile): 722.45 ns
>mean(overall): 1686.23 ns
>mean(99th percentile): 35379.27 ns
>
>After
>------
>mean(1st percentile): 602.62 ns
>mean(overall): 1248.83 ns
>mean(99th percentile): 17557.33 ns
Cool, thanks for this improvement!
Can you also report your host CPU detail?
>
>Co-developed-by: Luigi Leonardi <luigi.leonardi@...look.com>
>Signed-off-by: Luigi Leonardi <luigi.leonardi@...look.com>
>Signed-off-by: Marco Pinna <marco.pinn95@...il.com>
>---
> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>index c930235ecaec..e89bf87282b2 100644
>--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
>@@ -214,7 +214,9 @@ virtio_transport_send_pkt(struct sk_buff *skb)
> {
> struct virtio_vsock_hdr *hdr;
> struct virtio_vsock *vsock;
>+ bool use_worker = true;
> int len = skb->len;
>+ int ret = -1;
Please define ret in the block we use it. Also, we don't need to initialize it.
>
> hdr = virtio_vsock_hdr(skb);
>
>@@ -235,8 +237,34 @@ virtio_transport_send_pkt(struct sk_buff *skb)
> if (virtio_vsock_skb_reply(skb))
> atomic_inc(&vsock->queued_replies);
>
>- virtio_vsock_skb_queue_tail(&vsock->send_pkt_queue, skb);
>- queue_work(virtio_vsock_workqueue, &vsock->send_pkt_work);
>+ /* If the send_pkt_queue is empty there is no need to enqueue the packet.
We should clarify which queue. I mean we are always queueing the packet
somewhere, or in the internal queue for the worker or in the virtqueue,
so this comment is not really clear.
>+ * Just put it on the ringbuff using virtio_transport_send_skb.
ringbuff? Do you mean virtqueue?
>+ */
>+
we can avoid this empty line.
>+ if (skb_queue_empty_lockless(&vsock->send_pkt_queue)) {
>+ bool restart_rx = false;
>+ struct virtqueue *vq;
... `int ret;` here.
>+
>+ mutex_lock(&vsock->tx_lock);
>+
>+ vq = vsock->vqs[VSOCK_VQ_TX];
>+
>+ ret = virtio_transport_send_skb(skb, vq, vsock, &restart_rx);
Ah, at the end we don't need `ret` at all.
What about just `if (!virtio_transport_send_skb())`?
>+ if (ret == 0) {
>+ use_worker = false;
>+ virtqueue_kick(vq);
>+ }
>+
>+ mutex_unlock(&vsock->tx_lock);
>+
>+ if (restart_rx)
>+ queue_work(virtio_vsock_workqueue, &vsock->rx_work);
>+ }
>+
>+ if (use_worker) {
>+ virtio_vsock_skb_queue_tail(&vsock->send_pkt_queue, skb);
>+ queue_work(virtio_vsock_workqueue, &vsock->send_pkt_work);
>+ }
>
> out_rcu:
> rcu_read_unlock();
>--
>2.45.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists