On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 08:39:20AM +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 08:25:19AM CEST, jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 9:45 PM Jiri Pirko <jiri@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 09:56:50AM CEST, jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> >On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 2:05 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 12:25:15PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >> >> > > If the codes of orphan mode don't have an impact when you enable
> >> >> > > napi_tx mode, please keep it if you can.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For example, it complicates BQL implementation.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks
> >> >>
> >> >> I very much doubt sending interrupts to a VM can
> >> >> *on all benchmarks* compete with not sending interrupts.
> >> >
> >> >It should not differ too much from the physical NIC. We can have one
> >> >more round of benchmarks to see the difference.
> >> >
> >> >But if NAPI mode needs to win all of the benchmarks in order to get
> >> >rid of orphan, that would be very difficult. Considering various bugs
> >> >will be fixed by dropping skb_orphan(), it would be sufficient if most
> >> >of the benchmark doesn't show obvious differences.
> >> >
> >> >Looking at git history, there're commits that removes skb_orphan(), for example:
> >> >
> >> >commit 8112ec3b8722680251aecdcc23dfd81aa7af6340
> >> >Author: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >Date: Fri Sep 28 07:53:26 2012 +0000
> >> >
> >> > mlx4: dont orphan skbs in mlx4_en_xmit()
> >> >
> >> > After commit e22979d96a55d (mlx4_en: Moving to Interrupts for TX
> >> > completions) we no longer need to orphan skbs in mlx4_en_xmit()
> >> > since skb wont stay a long time in TX ring before their release.
> >> >
> >> > Orphaning skbs in ndo_start_xmit() should be avoided as much as
> >> > possible, since it breaks TCP Small Queue or other flow control
> >> > mechanisms (per socket limits)
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Acked-by: Yevgeny Petrilin <yevgenyp@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Cc: Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> So yea, it's great if napi and hardware are advanced enough
> >> >> that the default can be changed, since this way virtio
> >> >> is closer to a regular nic and more or standard
> >> >> infrastructure can be used.
> >> >>
> >> >> But dropping it will go against *no breaking userspace* rule.
> >> >> Complicated? Tough.
> >> >
> >> >I don't know what kind of userspace is broken by this. Or why it is
> >> >not broken since the day we enable NAPI mode by default.
> >>
> >> There is a module option that explicitly allows user to set
> >> napi_tx=false
> >> or
> >> napi_weight=0
> >>
> >> So if you remove this option or ignore it, both breaks the user
> >> expectation.
> >
> >We can keep them, but I wonder what's the expectation of the user
> >here? The only thing so far I can imagine is the performance
> >difference.
>
> True.
>
> >
> >> I personally would vote for this breakage. To carry ancient
> >> things like this one forever does not make sense to me.
> >
> >Exactly.
> >
> >> While at it,
> >> let's remove all virtio net module params. Thoughts?
> >
> >I tend to
> >
> >1) drop the orphan mode, but we can have some benchmarks first
>
> Any idea which? That would be really tricky to find the ones where
> orphan mode makes difference I assume.
Exactly. We are kind of stuck with it I think.
I would just do this:
void orphan_destructor(struct sk_buff *skb)
{
}
skb_orphan(skb);
skb->destructor = orphan_destructor;
/* skip BQL */
return;
and then later
/* skip BQL accounting if we orphaned on xmit path */
if (skb->destructor == orphan_destructor)
return;
Hmm?
>
> >2) keep the module parameters
>
> and ignore them, correct? Perhaps a warning would be good.
>
>
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Thanks
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> MST
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
