lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next RFC 5/5] vhost_net: basic tx virtqueue batched processing
From
Date


On 2017年09月28日 08:55, Willem de Bruijn wrote:
>> @@ -461,6 +460,7 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> struct socket *sock;
>> struct vhost_net_ubuf_ref *uninitialized_var(ubufs);
>> bool zcopy, zcopy_used;
>> + int i, batched = VHOST_NET_BATCH;
>>
>> mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
>> sock = vq->private_data;
>> @@ -475,6 +475,12 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> hdr_size = nvq->vhost_hlen;
>> zcopy = nvq->ubufs;
>>
>> + /* Disable zerocopy batched fetching for simplicity */
> This special case can perhaps be avoided if we no longer block
> on vhost_exceeds_maxpend, but revert to copying.

Yes, I think so. For simplicity, I do it for data copy first. If the
idea is convinced, I will try to do zerocopy on top.

>
>> + if (zcopy) {
>> + heads = &used;
> Can this special case of batchsize 1 not use vq->heads?

It doesn't in fact?

>
>> + batched = 1;
>> + }
>> +
>> for (;;) {
>> /* Release DMAs done buffers first */
>> if (zcopy)
>> @@ -486,95 +492,114 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
>> if (unlikely(vhost_exceeds_maxpend(net)))
>> break;
>> + /* TODO: Check specific error and bomb out
>> + * unless ENOBUFS?
>> + */
>> + err = sock->ops->sendmsg(sock, &msg, len);
>> + if (unlikely(err < 0)) {
>> + if (zcopy_used) {
>> + vhost_net_ubuf_put(ubufs);
>> + nvq->upend_idx =
>> + ((unsigned)nvq->upend_idx - 1) % UIO_MAXIOV;
>> + }
>> + vhost_discard_vq_desc(vq, 1);
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> + if (err != len)
>> + pr_debug("Truncated TX packet: "
>> + " len %d != %zd\n", err, len);
>> + if (!zcopy) {
>> + vhost_add_used_idx(vq, 1);
>> + vhost_signal(&net->dev, vq);
>> + } else if (!zcopy_used) {
>> + vhost_add_used_and_signal(&net->dev,
>> + vq, head, 0);
> While batching, perhaps can also move this producer index update
> out of the loop and using vhost_add_used_and_signal_n.

Yes.

>
>> + } else
>> + vhost_zerocopy_signal_used(net, vq);
>> + vhost_net_tx_packet(net);
>> + if (unlikely(total_len >= VHOST_NET_WEIGHT)) {
>> + vhost_poll_queue(&vq->poll);
>> + goto out;
>> }
>> - vhost_discard_vq_desc(vq, 1);
>> - break;
>> - }
>> - if (err != len)
>> - pr_debug("Truncated TX packet: "
>> - " len %d != %zd\n", err, len);
>> - if (!zcopy_used)
>> - vhost_add_used_and_signal(&net->dev, vq, head, 0);
>> - else
>> - vhost_zerocopy_signal_used(net, vq);
>> - vhost_net_tx_packet(net);
>> - if (unlikely(total_len >= VHOST_NET_WEIGHT)) {
>> - vhost_poll_queue(&vq->poll);
>> - break;
> This patch touches many lines just for indentation. If having to touch
> these lines anyway (dirtying git blame), it may be a good time to move
> the processing of a single descriptor code into a separate helper function.
> And while breaking up, perhaps another helper for setting up ubuf_info.
> If you agree, preferably in a separate noop refactor patch that precedes
> the functional changes.

Right and it looks better, will try to do this.

Thanks

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-28 09:52    [W:0.123 / U:2.416 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site