On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 10:25:28AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2018/11/8 下午10:14, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 04:18:25PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On 2018/11/8 上午9:38, Tiwei Bie wrote:
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (vq->vq.num_free < descs_used) {
> > > > > > + pr_debug("Can't add buf len %i - avail = %i\n",
> > > > > > + descs_used, vq->vq.num_free);
> > > > > > + /* FIXME: for historical reasons, we force a notify here if
> > > > > > + * there are outgoing parts to the buffer. Presumably the
> > > > > > + * host should service the ring ASAP. */
> > > > > I don't think we have a reason to do this for packed ring.
> > > > > No historical baggage there, right?
> > > > Based on the original commit log, it seems that the notify here
> > > > is just an "optimization". But I don't quite understand what does
> > > > the "the heuristics which KVM uses" refer to. If it's safe to drop
> > > > this in packed ring, I'd like to do it.
> > >
> > > According to the commit log, it seems like a workaround of lguest networking
> > > backend. I agree to drop it, we should not have such burden.
> > >
> > > But we should notice that, with this removed, the compare between packed vs
> > > split is kind of unfair.
> > I don't think this ever triggers to be frank. When would it?
>
>
> I think it can happen e.g in the path of XDP transmission in
> __virtnet_xdp_xmit_one():
>
>
> err = virtqueue_add_outbuf(sq->vq, sq->sg, 1, xdpf, GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (unlikely(err))
> return -ENOSPC; /* Caller handle free/refcnt */
>
I see. We used to do it for regular xmit but stopped
doing it. Is it fine for xdp then?
> >
> > > Consider the removal of lguest support recently,
> > > maybe we can drop this for split ring as well?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > If it's helpful, then for sure we can drop it for virtio 1.
> > Can you see any perf differences at all? With which device?
>
>
> I don't test but consider the case of XDP_TX in guest plus vhost_net in
> host. Since vhost_net is half duplex, it's pretty easier to trigger this
> condition.
>
> Thanks
Sounds reasonable. Worth testing before we change things though.
>
> >
> > > > commit 44653eae1407f79dff6f52fcf594ae84cb165ec4
> > > > Author: Rusty Russell<rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Date: Fri Jul 25 12:06:04 2008 -0500
> > > >
> > > > virtio: don't always force a notification when ring is full
> > > > We force notification when the ring is full, even if the host has
> > > > indicated it doesn't want to know. This seemed like a good idea at
> > > > the time: if we fill the transmit ring, we should tell the host
> > > > immediately.
> > > > Unfortunately this logic also applies to the receiving ring, which is
> > > > refilled constantly. We should introduce real notification thesholds
> > > > to replace this logic. Meanwhile, removing the logic altogether breaks
> > > > the heuristics which KVM uses, so we use a hack: only notify if there are
> > > > outgoing parts of the new buffer.
> > > > Here are the number of exits with lguest's crappy network implementation:
> > > > Before:
> > > > network xmit 7859051 recv 236420
> > > > After:
> > > > network xmit 7858610 recv 118136
> > > > Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell<rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > index 72bf8bc09014..21d9a62767af 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> > > > @@ -87,8 +87,11 @@ static int vring_add_buf(struct virtqueue *_vq,
> > > > if (vq->num_free < out + in) {
> > > > pr_debug("Can't add buf len %i - avail = %i\n",
> > > > out + in, vq->num_free);
> > > > - /* We notify*even if* VRING_USED_F_NO_NOTIFY is set here. */
> > > > - vq->notify(&vq->vq);
> > > > + /* FIXME: for historical reasons, we force a notify here if
> > > > + * there are outgoing parts to the buffer. Presumably the
> > > > + * host should service the ring ASAP. */
> > > > + if (out)
> > > > + vq->notify(&vq->vq);
> > > > END_USE(vq);
> > > > return -ENOSPC;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > >
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
