Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] virtio-net: clean tx descriptors from rx napi

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 5:10 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:59:58PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:02:13AM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>> >> On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:47 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 04:10:12PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>> >> >> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Amortize the cost of virtual interrupts by doing both rx and tx work
>> >> >> on reception of a receive interrupt if tx napi is enabled. With
>> >> >> VIRTIO_F_EVENT_IDX, this suppresses most explicit tx completion
>> >> >> interrupts for bidirectional workloads.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Signed-off-by: Willem de Bruijn <willemb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > This is a popular approach, but I think this will only work well if tx
>> > and rx interrupts are processed on the same CPU and if tx queue is per
>> > cpu.  If they target different CPUs or if tx queue is used from multiple
>> > CPUs they will conflict on the shared locks.
>>
>> Yes. As a result of this discussion I started running a few vcpu affinity tests.
>>
>> > This can even change dynamically as CPUs/queues are reconfigured.
>> > How about adding a flag and skipping the tx poll if there's no match?
>>
>> I suspect that even with the cache invalidations this optimization
>> will be an improvement over handling all tx interrupts in the tx napi
>> handler. I will get the datapoint for that.
>>
>> That said, we can make this conditional. What flag exactly do you
>> propose? Compare raw_smp_processor_id() in the rx softint with one
>> previously stored in the napi tx callback?
>
> I'm not sure. Another idea is to check vi->affinity_hint_set.
> If set we know rq and sq are on the same CPU.

I was not aware of that flag, thanks. Yes, that looks like it should work.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization



[Index of Archives]     [KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux