On 10/22/2015 05:33 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 01:27:29AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote:
>> This patch tries to poll for new added tx buffer for a while at the
>> end of tx processing. The maximum time spent on polling were limited
>> through a module parameter. To avoid block rx, the loop will end it
>> there's new other works queued on vhost so in fact socket receive
>> queue is also be polled.
>>
>> busyloop_timeout = 50 gives us following improvement on TCP_RR test:
>>
>> size/session/+thu%/+normalize%
>> 1/ 1/ +5%/ -20%
>> 1/ 50/ +17%/ +3%
> Is there a measureable increase in cpu utilization
> with busyloop_timeout = 0?
Just run TCP_RR, no increasing. Will run a complete test on next version.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> We might be able to shave off the minor regression
> by careful use of likely/unlikely, or maybe
> deferring
Yes, but what did "deferring" mean here?
>
>> ---
>> drivers/vhost/net.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> index 9eda69e..bbb522a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> @@ -31,7 +31,9 @@
>> #include "vhost.h"
>>
>> static int experimental_zcopytx = 1;
>> +static int busyloop_timeout = 50;
>> module_param(experimental_zcopytx, int, 0444);
>> +module_param(busyloop_timeout, int, 0444);
> Pls add a description, including the units and the special
> value 0.
Ok.
>
>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(experimental_zcopytx, "Enable Zero Copy TX;"
>> " 1 -Enable; 0 - Disable");
>>
>> @@ -287,12 +289,23 @@ static void vhost_zerocopy_callback(struct ubuf_info *ubuf, bool success)
>> rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>> }
>>
>> +static bool tx_can_busy_poll(struct vhost_dev *dev,
>> + unsigned long endtime)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long now = local_clock() >> 10;
> local_clock might go backwards if we jump between CPUs.
> One way to fix would be to record the CPU id and break
> out of loop if that changes.
Right, or maybe disable preemption in this case?
>
> Also - defer this until we actually know we need it?
Right.
>
>> +
>> + return busyloop_timeout && !need_resched() &&
>> + !time_after(now, endtime) && !vhost_has_work(dev) &&
>> + single_task_running();
> signal pending as well?
Yes.
>> +}
>> +
>> /* Expects to be always run from workqueue - which acts as
>> * read-size critical section for our kind of RCU. */
>> static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> {
>> struct vhost_net_virtqueue *nvq = &net->vqs[VHOST_NET_VQ_TX];
>> struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &nvq->vq;
>> + unsigned long endtime;
>> unsigned out, in;
>> int head;
>> struct msghdr msg = {
>> @@ -331,6 +344,8 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> % UIO_MAXIOV == nvq->done_idx))
>> break;
>>
>> + endtime = (local_clock() >> 10) + busyloop_timeout;
>> +again:
>> head = vhost_get_vq_desc(vq, vq->iov,
>> ARRAY_SIZE(vq->iov),
>> &out, &in,
>> @@ -340,6 +355,10 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> break;
>> /* Nothing new? Wait for eventfd to tell us they refilled. */
>> if (head == vq->num) {
>> + if (tx_can_busy_poll(vq->dev, endtime)) {
>> + cpu_relax();
>> + goto again;
>> + }
>> if (unlikely(vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, vq))) {
>> vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, vq);
>> continue;
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
