On 05/07/2013 08:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 02:13:44PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 03:41:36PM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote: >>>> Asias He <asias@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>>> Asias He (3): >>>>> vhost: Remove vhost_enable_zcopy in vhost.h >>>>> vhost: Move VHOST_NET_FEATURES to net.c >>>>> vhost: Make vhost a separate module >>>> I like these cleanups, MST pleasee apply. >>> Absolutely. Except it's 3.11 material and I can only >>> usefully create a -next branch once -rc1 is out. >>> >>>> I have some other cleanups which are on hold for the moment pending >>>> MST's vhost_net simplification. MST, how's that going? >>> Not too well. The array of status bytes which was designed to complete >>> packets in order turns out to be a very efficient datastructure: >>> >>> It gives us a way to signal completions that is completely lockless for >>> multiple completers, and using the producer/consumer model saves extra >>> scans for the common case. >>> >>> Overall I can save some memory and clean up some code but can't get rid >>> of the producer/consumer idices (currently named upend/done indices) >>> which is what you asked me to do. >>> Your cleanups basically don't work with zcopy because they >>> ignore the upend/done indices? >>> Would you like to post them, noting they only work with zcopy off, and >>> we'll look for a way to apply them, together? >> Not quite; it's just that I don't understand that code. It seemed to be >> achieving something (ordered completion) which was entirely unnecessary, >> so I went on with other things while you removed it. Now that's not >> possible, I'll revisit. >> >> AFAICT we should always do zero copy. > It seems not to be a win for small packets. > I speculate the issue is that ring space isn't released as promptly. > Further, we can't do it safely for guest to guest and guest to host. > And if we try, net core just does a packet copy later (which is less > efficient). So there's a hack in place to detect that and suppress zero > copy. We can do something to eliminate this copy: - change the vnet header to NET_SKB_PAD - use build_skb() to build the skb->data from the page directly Then for packet size smaller than PAGE_SIZE - NET_SKB_PAD - SKB_DATA_ALIGN(sizeof(struct skb_shared_info)), we can build the packet directly instead of copy 128 bytes. > >> Though I do wonder if we should >> use a dedicated hook to get an skb into the tun driver and generate it >> ourselves, rather than going sg -> iov -> skb. >> >> Cheers, >> Rusty. > I think we'd have to export two interfaces: > - alloc_skb() > .... add frags ... > - send_skb > > the code to add frags could maybe use some > library functions ... > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
