On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Qin Chuanyu <qinchua...@huawei.com>
wrote:
On 2014/12/1 18:17, Jason Wang wrote:
On newer hosts that support delayed tx interrupts,
we probably don't have much to gain from orphaning
packets early.
Note: this might degrade performance for
hosts without event idx support.
Should be addressed by the next patch.
Cc: Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>
---
drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 132
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
index ec2a8b4..f68114e 100644
--- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
+++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
static int xmit_skb(struct send_queue *sq, struct sk_buff *skb)
{
struct skb_vnet_hdr *hdr;
@@ -912,7 +951,9 @@ static int xmit_skb(struct send_queue *sq,
struct sk_buff *skb)
sg_set_buf(sq->sg, hdr, hdr_len);
num_sg = skb_to_sgvec(skb, sq->sg + 1, 0, skb->len) + 1;
}
- return virtqueue_add_outbuf(sq->vq, sq->sg, num_sg, skb,
GFP_ATOMIC);
+
+ return virtqueue_add_outbuf(sq->vq, sq->sg, num_sg, skb,
+ GFP_ATOMIC);
}
static netdev_tx_t start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct
net_device *dev)
@@ -924,8 +965,7 @@ static netdev_tx_t start_xmit(struct sk_buff
*skb, struct net_device *dev)
struct netdev_queue *txq = netdev_get_tx_queue(dev, qnum);
bool kick = !skb->xmit_more;
- /* Free up any pending old buffers before queueing new ones. */
- free_old_xmit_skbs(sq);
I think there is no need to remove free_old_xmit_skbs here.
you could add free_old_xmit_skbs in tx_irq's napi func.
also could do this in start_xmit if you handle the race well.
Note, free_old_xmit_skbs() has already called in tx napi.
It was a must after tx interrupt was enabled.
I have done the same thing in ixgbe driver(free skb in ndo_start_xmit
and both in tx_irq's poll func), and it seems work well:)
Any performance numbers on this change?
I suspect it reduce the effects of interrupt coalescing.
I think there would be no so much interrupts in this way, also tx
interrupt coalesce is not needed.
Tests (multiple sessions of TCP_RR) does not support this.
Calling free_old_xmit_skbs() in fact damage the performance.
Any justification that you think it may reduce the interrupts?
Thanks
+ virtqueue_disable_cb(sq->vq);
/* Try to transmit */
err = xmit_skb(sq, skb);
@@ -941,27 +981,19 @@ static netdev_tx_t start_xmit(struct sk_buff
*skb, struct net_device *dev)
return NETDEV_TX_OK;
}
- /* Don't wait up for transmitted skbs to be freed. */
- skb_orphan(skb);
- nf_reset(skb);
-
/* Apparently nice girls don't return TX_BUSY; stop the queue
* before it gets out of hand. Naturally, this wastes entries. */
- if (sq->vq->num_free < 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
+ if (sq->vq->num_free < 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS)
netif_stop_subqueue(dev, qnum);
- if (unlikely(!virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed(sq->vq))) {
- /* More just got used, free them then recheck. */
- free_old_xmit_skbs(sq);
- if (sq->vq->num_free >= 2+MAX_SKB_FRAGS) {
- netif_start_subqueue(dev, qnum);
- virtqueue_disable_cb(sq->vq);
- }
- }
- }
if (kick || netif_xmit_stopped(txq))
virtqueue_kick(sq->vq);
+ if (unlikely(!virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed(sq->vq))) {
+ virtqueue_disable_cb(sq->vq);
+ napi_schedule(&sq->napi);
+ }
+
return NETDEV_TX_OK;
}
@@ -1138,8 +1170,10 @@ static int virtnet_close(struct net_device
*dev)
/* Make sure refill_work doesn't re-enable napi! */
cancel_delayed_work_sync(&vi->refill);
- for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++)
+ for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
napi_disable(&vi->rq[i].napi);
+ napi_disable(&vi->sq[i].napi);
+ }
return 0;
}
@@ -1452,8 +1486,10 @@ static void virtnet_free_queues(struct
virtnet_info *vi)
{
int i;
- for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++)
+ for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
netif_napi_del(&vi->rq[i].napi);
+ netif_napi_del(&vi->sq[i].napi);
+ }
kfree(vi->rq);
kfree(vi->sq);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
