On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 11:49:59AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 02:11:56 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Current code might introduce a lot of latency variation
> > if there are many pending bufs at the time we
> > attempt to transmit a new one. This is bad for
> > real-time applications and can't be good for TCP either.
>
> Do we have more than speculation to back that up, BTW?
Need to dig this up: I thought we saw some reports of this on the list?
> This patch is pretty sloppy; the previous ones were better polished.
>
> > -static void free_old_xmit_skbs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > +static bool free_old_xmit_skbs(struct virtnet_info *vi, int capacity)
> > {
>
> A comment here indicating it returns true if it frees something?
Agree.
> > struct sk_buff *skb;
> > unsigned int len;
> > -
> > - while ((skb = virtqueue_get_buf(vi->svq, &len)) != NULL) {
> > + bool c;
> > + int n;
> > +
> > + /* We try to free up at least 2 skbs per one sent, so that we'll get
> > + * all of the memory back if they are used fast enough. */
> > + for (n = 0;
> > + ((c = virtqueue_get_capacity(vi->svq) < capacity) || n < 2) &&
> > + ((skb = virtqueue_get_buf(vi->svq, &len)));
> > + ++n) {
> > pr_debug("Sent skb %p\n", skb);
> > vi->dev->stats.tx_bytes += skb->len;
> > vi->dev->stats.tx_packets++;
> > dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> > }
> > + return !c;
>
> This is for() abuse :)
>
> Why is the capacity check in there at all? Surely it's simpler to try
> to free 2 skbs each time around?
This is in case we can't use indirect: we want to free up
enough buffers for the following add_buf to succeed.
> for (n = 0; n < 2; n++) {
> skb = virtqueue_get_buf(vi->svq, &len);
> if (!skb)
> break;
> pr_debug("Sent skb %p\n", skb);
> vi->dev->stats.tx_bytes += skb->len;
> vi->dev->stats.tx_packets++;
> dev_kfree_skb_any(skb);
> }
>
> > static int xmit_skb(struct virtnet_info *vi, struct sk_buff *skb)
> > @@ -574,8 +582,8 @@ static netdev_tx_t start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
> > struct virtnet_info *vi = netdev_priv(dev);
> > int capacity;
> >
> > - /* Free up any pending old buffers before queueing new ones. */
> > - free_old_xmit_skbs(vi);
> > + /* Free enough pending old buffers to enable queueing new ones. */
> > + free_old_xmit_skbs(vi, 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS);
> >
> > /* Try to transmit */
> > capacity = xmit_skb(vi, skb);
> > @@ -609,9 +617,7 @@ static netdev_tx_t start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
> > netif_stop_queue(dev);
> > if (unlikely(!virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed(vi->svq))) {
> > /* More just got used, free them then recheck. */
> > - free_old_xmit_skbs(vi);
> > - capacity = virtqueue_get_capacity(vi->svq);
> > - if (capacity >= 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
> > + if (!likely(free_old_xmit_skbs(vi, 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS))) {
>
> This extra argument to free_old_xmit_skbs seems odd, unless you have
> future plans?
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
I just wanted to localize the 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS logic that tries to make
sure we have enough space in the buffer. Another way to do
that is with a define :).
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
