Re: [PATCH] vhost: get 2% performance improved by reducing spin_lock race in vhost_work_queue

2013-05-20 Thread Qinchuanyu
From: Chuanyu Qin 
Subject: [PATCH] get 2% or more performance improved by reducing spin_lock race 
in vhost_work_queue

the wake_up_process func is included by spin_lock/unlock in vhost_work_queue, 
but it could be done outside the spin_lock. 
I have test it with kernel 3.0.27 and guest suse11-sp2 using iperf, the num as 
below.
 orignal   modified
thread_num  tp(Gbps)   vhost(%)  |  tp(Gbps) vhost(%)
1   9.59 28.82   |  9.5927.49
89.6132.92   |  9.6226.77
649.5846.48  | 9.5538.99
2569.663.7   |  9.6 52.59

Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin 
---
 drivers/vhost/vhost.c |5 +++--
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
index 94dbd25..8bee109 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
@@ -146,9 +146,10 @@ static inline void vhost_work_queue(struct vhost_dev *dev,
if (list_empty(&work->node)) {
list_add_tail(&work->node, &dev->work_list);
work->queue_seq++;
+   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
wake_up_process(dev->worker);
-   }
-   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
+   } else
+   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
 }
 
 void vhost_poll_queue(struct vhost_poll *poll)
-- 
1.7.3.1.msysgit.0


> On 05/20/2013 12:22 PM, Qinchuanyu wrote:
> > The patch below is base on
> > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-
> next.git/tree/drivers/vhost/vhost.c?id=refs/tags/next-20130517
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin 
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 11:47:05.0 +0800
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 11:48:24.0 +0800
> > @@ -154,9 +154,10 @@
> > if (list_empty(&work->node)) {
> > list_add_tail(&work->node, &dev->work_list);
> > work->queue_seq++;
> > +   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
> > wake_up_process(dev->worker);
> > -   }
> > -   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
> > +   } else
> > +   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
> >  }
> >
> >  void vhost_poll_queue(struct vhost_poll *poll)
> >
> > I did the test by using iperf in 10G environment, the test num as
> below:
> >  orignal   modified
> > thread_num  tp(Gbps)   vhost(%)  |  tp(Gbps) vhost(%)
> > 1   9.59 28.82   |  9.5927.49
> > 89.6132.92   |  9.6226.77
> > 649.5846.48  | 9.5538.99
> > 2569.663.7   |  9.6 52.59
> >
> > The cost of vhost reduced while the throughput is almost unchanged.
> 
> Thanks, and please generate a formal patch based on
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches (put the description and perf numbers
> in the commit log). Then resubmit it to let the maintainer apply it.

N�r��yb�X��ǧv�^�)޺{.n�+h����ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v���zZ+��+zf���h���~i���z��w���?�&�)ߢf

Re: [PATCH] vhost: get 2% performance improved by reducing spin_lock race in vhost_work_queue

2013-05-19 Thread Jason Wang
On 05/20/2013 12:22 PM, Qinchuanyu wrote:
> The patch below is base on 
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/vhost/vhost.c?id=refs/tags/next-20130517
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin 
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 11:47:05.0 +0800
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 11:48:24.0 +0800
> @@ -154,9 +154,10 @@
> if (list_empty(&work->node)) {
> list_add_tail(&work->node, &dev->work_list);
> work->queue_seq++;
> +   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
> wake_up_process(dev->worker);
> -   }
> -   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
> +   } else
> +   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
>  }
>  
>  void vhost_poll_queue(struct vhost_poll *poll)
>
> I did the test by using iperf in 10G environment, the test num as below:
>  orignal   modified
> thread_num  tp(Gbps)   vhost(%)  |  tp(Gbps) vhost(%)
> 1   9.59 28.82   |  9.5927.49
> 89.6132.92   |  9.6226.77
> 649.5846.48  | 9.5538.99
> 2569.663.7   |  9.6 52.59
>
> The cost of vhost reduced while the throughput is almost unchanged.

Thanks, and please generate a formal patch based on
Documentation/SubmittingPatches (put the description and perf numbers in
the commit log). Then resubmit it to let the maintainer apply it.

>
> On 05/20/2013 11:06 AM, Qinchuanyu wrote:
>> Right now the wake_up_process func is included in spin_lock/unlock, but it 
>> could be done outside the spin_lock.
>> I have test it with kernel 3.0.27 and guest suse11-sp2, it provide 2%-3% net 
>> performance improved.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin 
> Make sense to me but need generate a patch against net-next.git or
> vhost.git in git.kernel.org.
>
> Btw. How did you test this? Care to share the perf numbers?
>
> Thanks
>> mu
>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 10:36:30.0 +0800
>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 10:36:54.0 +0800
>> @@ -144,9 +144,10 @@
>> if (list_empty(&work->node)) {
>> list_add_tail(&work->node, &dev->work_list);
>> work->queue_seq++;
>> +   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
>> wake_up_process(dev->worker);
>> -   }
>> -   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
>> +   } else
>> +   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
>>  }
>>  
>>  void vhost_poll_queue(struct vhost_poll *poll)
>> --
>> 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
> N�r��y���b�X��ǧv�^�)޺{.n�+���z�^�)���w*jg����ݢj/���z�ޖ��2�ޙ���&�)ߡ�a�����G���h��j:+v���w�٥

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: [PATCH] vhost: get 2% performance improved by reducing spin_lock race in vhost_work_queue

2013-05-19 Thread Qinchuanyu
The patch below is base on 
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/next/linux-next.git/tree/drivers/vhost/vhost.c?id=refs/tags/next-20130517

Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin 
--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 11:47:05.0 +0800
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 11:48:24.0 +0800
@@ -154,9 +154,10 @@
if (list_empty(&work->node)) {
list_add_tail(&work->node, &dev->work_list);
work->queue_seq++;
+   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
wake_up_process(dev->worker);
-   }
-   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
+   } else
+   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
 }
 
 void vhost_poll_queue(struct vhost_poll *poll)

I did the test by using iperf in 10G environment, the test num as below:
 orignal   modified
thread_num  tp(Gbps)   vhost(%)  |  tp(Gbps) vhost(%)
1   9.59 28.82   |  9.5927.49
89.6132.92   |  9.6226.77
649.5846.48  | 9.5538.99
2569.663.7   |  9.6 52.59

The cost of vhost reduced while the throughput is almost unchanged.

On 05/20/2013 11:06 AM, Qinchuanyu wrote:
> Right now the wake_up_process func is included in spin_lock/unlock, but it 
> could be done outside the spin_lock.
> I have test it with kernel 3.0.27 and guest suse11-sp2, it provide 2%-3% net 
> performance improved.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin 

Make sense to me but need generate a patch against net-next.git or
vhost.git in git.kernel.org.

Btw. How did you test this? Care to share the perf numbers?

Thanks
> mu
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 10:36:30.0 +0800
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 10:36:54.0 +0800
> @@ -144,9 +144,10 @@
> if (list_empty(&work->node)) {
> list_add_tail(&work->node, &dev->work_list);
> work->queue_seq++;
> +   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
> wake_up_process(dev->worker);
> -   }
> -   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
> +   } else
> +   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
>  }
>  
>  void vhost_poll_queue(struct vhost_poll *poll)
> --
> 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



Re: [PATCH] vhost: get 2% performance improved by reducing spin_lock race in vhost_work_queue

2013-05-19 Thread Lei Li

On 05/20/2013 11:38 AM, Jason Wang wrote:

On 05/20/2013 11:06 AM, Qinchuanyu wrote:

Right now the wake_up_process func is included in spin_lock/unlock, but it 
could be done outside the spin_lock.
I have test it with kernel 3.0.27 and guest suse11-sp2, it provide 2%-3% net 
performance improved.

Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin 

Make sense to me but need generate a patch against net-next.git or
vhost.git in git.kernel.org.

Btw. How did you test this? Care to share the perf numbers?


I wonder how did you get the performance improved number 2%?



Thanks

mu
--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 10:36:30.0 +0800
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 10:36:54.0 +0800
@@ -144,9 +144,10 @@
 if (list_empty(&work->node)) {
 list_add_tail(&work->node, &dev->work_list);
 work->queue_seq++;
+   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
 wake_up_process(dev->worker);
-   }
-   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
+   } else
+   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
  }
  
  void vhost_poll_queue(struct vhost_poll *poll)

--
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 kvm" 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 kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: [PATCH] vhost: get 2% performance improved by reducing spin_lock race in vhost_work_queue

2013-05-19 Thread Jason Wang
On 05/20/2013 11:06 AM, Qinchuanyu wrote:
> Right now the wake_up_process func is included in spin_lock/unlock, but it 
> could be done outside the spin_lock.
> I have test it with kernel 3.0.27 and guest suse11-sp2, it provide 2%-3% net 
> performance improved.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin 

Make sense to me but need generate a patch against net-next.git or
vhost.git in git.kernel.org.

Btw. How did you test this? Care to share the perf numbers?

Thanks
> mu
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 10:36:30.0 +0800
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 10:36:54.0 +0800
> @@ -144,9 +144,10 @@
> if (list_empty(&work->node)) {
> list_add_tail(&work->node, &dev->work_list);
> work->queue_seq++;
> +   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
> wake_up_process(dev->worker);
> -   }
> -   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
> +   } else
> +   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
>  }
>  
>  void vhost_poll_queue(struct vhost_poll *poll)
> --
> 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 kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[PATCH] vhost: get 2% performance improved by reducing spin_lock race in vhost_work_queue

2013-05-19 Thread Qinchuanyu
Right now the wake_up_process func is included in spin_lock/unlock, but it 
could be done outside the spin_lock.
I have test it with kernel 3.0.27 and guest suse11-sp2, it provide 2%-3% net 
performance improved.

Signed-off-by: Chuanyu Qin 
--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 10:36:30.0 +0800
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c 2013-05-20 10:36:54.0 +0800
@@ -144,9 +144,10 @@
if (list_empty(&work->node)) {
list_add_tail(&work->node, &dev->work_list);
work->queue_seq++;
+   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
wake_up_process(dev->worker);
-   }
-   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
+   } else
+   spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->work_lock, flags);
 }
 
 void vhost_poll_queue(struct vhost_poll *poll)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html