[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next RFC 0/5] xen-netback: TX grant mapping instead of copy
On 01/11/13 10:50, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Does this always avoid copying when bridging/openvswitching/forwarding
> (e.g. masquerading etc)? For both domU->domU and domU->physical NIC?
I've tested the domU->domU, domU->physical with bridge and openvswitch
usecase, and now I've created a new stat counter to see how often copy
happens (the callback's second parameter tells you whether the skb was
freed or copied). It doesn't do copy in all of these scenarios.
What do you mean by forwarding? The scenario when you use bridge and
iptables mangling with the packet, not just filtering?

> How does it deal with broadcast traffic?
Most of the real broadcast traffic actually small packets fit in the
PKT_PROT_LEN sized linear space, so it doesn't make any difference,
apart from doing a mapping before copy. But that will be eliminated
later on, I plan to add an incremental improvement to grant copy the
linear part.
I haven't spent too much time on that, but I couldn't find any broadcast
protocol which use large enough packets and easy to test, so I'm open to
What I already know, skb_clone trigger a copy, and if the caller use the
original skb for every cloning, it will do several copy. I think that
could be fixed by using the first clone to do any further clones.

> Do you have any numbers for the dom0 cpu usage impact?
DomU->NIC: the vif took 40% according to top, I guess the bottleneck
there is the TLB flushing.
DomU->DomU: the vif of the RX side cause the bottleneck due to grant
copy to the guest

> Aggregate throughput for many guests would be a useful datapoint too.
I will do measurements about that.

>> Based on my investigations the packet get only copied if it is
delivered to
>>Dom0 stack, which is due to this patch:
>>That's a bit unfortunate, but as far as I know for the huge majority
this use
>>case is not too important.
> Likely to be true, but it would still be interesting to know how badly
> this use case suffers with this change, and any increase in CPU usage
> would be interesting to know about as well.
I can't find my numbers, but as far as I remember it wasn't
significantly worse than grant copy. I will check that again.


 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-01 20:21    [W:0.168 / U:6.640 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site