On 2016年06月07日 20:26, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:56:34AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote:
We always poll tx for socket, this is sub optimal since:
- it will be only used when we exceed the sndbuf of the socket.
- since we use two independent polls for tx and vq, this will slightly
increase the waitqueue traversing time and more important, vhost
could not benefit from commit
9e641bdcfa4ef4d6e2fbaa59c1be0ad5d1551fd5 ("net-tun: restructure
tun_do_read for better sleep/wakeup efficiency") even if we've
stopped rx polling during handle_rx since tx poll were still left in
the waitqueue.
Fix this by conditionally enable tx polling only when -EAGAIN were
met.
Test shows about 8% improvement on guest rx pps.
Before: ~1350000
After: ~1460000
Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>
---
drivers/vhost/net.c | 3 +++
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
index 1d3e45f..e75ffcc 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
@@ -378,6 +378,7 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
goto out;
vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, vq);
+ vhost_net_disable_vq(net, vq);
hdr_size = nvq->vhost_hlen;
zcopy = nvq->ubufs;
@@ -459,6 +460,8 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
% UIO_MAXIOV;
}
vhost_discard_vq_desc(vq, 1);
+ if (err == -EAGAIN)
+ vhost_net_enable_vq(net, vq);
break;
}
if (err != len)
This seems rather risky. What if TX failed for some other reason?
Polling won't ever be re-enabled ...
But why we need to enable tx poll in this case? Even if we enable it, we
wont' get any wakeup.
--
1.8.3.1
