lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 1/2] virtio-net: bql support
From
Date

On 2019/1/2 下午9:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 11:28:43AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2018/12/31 上午2:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 06:00:36PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2018/12/26 下午11:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 04:17:36PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018/12/6 上午6:54, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>>> When use_napi is set, let's enable BQLs. Note: some of the issues are
>>>>>>> similar to wifi. It's worth considering whether something similar to
>>>>>>> commit 36148c2bbfbe ("mac80211: Adjust TSQ pacing shift") might be
>>>>>>> benefitial.
>>>>>> I've played a similar patch several days before. The tricky part is the mode
>>>>>> switching between napi and no napi. We should make sure when the packet is
>>>>>> sent and trakced by BQL,  it should be consumed by BQL as well. I did it by
>>>>>> tracking it through skb->cb.  And deal with the freeze by reset the BQL
>>>>>> status. Patch attached.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But when testing with vhost-net, I don't very a stable performance,
>>>>> So how about increasing TSQ pacing shift then?
>>>> I can test this. But changing default TCP value is much more than a
>>>> virtio-net specific thing.
>>> Well same logic as wifi applies. Unpredictable latencies related
>>> to radio in one case, to host scheduler in the other.
>>>
>>>>>> it was
>>>>>> probably because we batch the used ring updating so tx interrupt may come
>>>>>> randomly. We probably need to implement time bounded coalescing mechanism
>>>>>> which could be configured from userspace.
>>>>> I don't think it's reasonable to expect userspace to be that smart ...
>>>>> Why do we need time bounded? used ring is always updated when ring
>>>>> becomes empty.
>>>> We don't add used when means BQL may not see the consumed packet in time.
>>>> And the delay varies based on the workload since we count packets not bytes
>>>> or time before doing the batched updating.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>> Sorry I still don't get it.
>>> When nothing is outstanding then we do update the used.
>>> So if BQL stops userspace from sending packets then
>>> we get an interrupt and packets start flowing again.
>> Yes, but how about the cases of multiple flows. That's where I see unstable
>> results.
>>
>>
>>> It might be suboptimal, we might need to tune it but I doubt running
>>> timers is a solution, timer interrupts cause VM exits.
>> Probably not a timer but a time counter (or event byte counter) in vhost to
>> add used and signal guest if it exceeds a value instead of waiting the
>> number of packets.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
> Well we already have VHOST_NET_WEIGHT - is it too big then?


I'm not sure, it might be too big.


>
> And maybe we should expose the "MORE" flag in the descriptor -
> do you think that will help?
>

I don't know. But how a "more" flag can help here?

Thanks


>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-07 03:15    [W:0.076 / U:1.284 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site