Re: [PATCH 6/6] vhost_net: remove the max pending check

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 04:55:49PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 08/20/2013 10:48 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On 08/16/2013 06:02 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:16:30PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>> >> We used to limit the max pending DMAs to prevent guest from pinning too many
> >>> >> pages. But this could be removed since:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> - We have the sk_wmem_alloc check in both tun/macvtap to do the same work
> >>> >> - This max pending check were almost useless since it was one done when there's
> >>> >>   no new buffers coming from guest. Guest can easily exceeds the limitation.
> >>> >> - We've already check upend_idx != done_idx and switch to non zerocopy then. So
> >>> >>   even if all vq->heads were used, we can still does the packet transmission.
> >> > We can but performance will suffer.
> > The check were in fact only done when no new buffers submitted from
> > guest. So if guest keep sending, the check won't be done.
> >
> > If we really want to do this, we should do it unconditionally. Anyway, I
> > will do test to see the result.
> 
> There's a bug in PATCH 5/6, the check:
> 
> nvq->upend_idx != nvq->done_idx
> 
> makes the zerocopy always been disabled since we initialize both
> upend_idx and done_idx to zero. So I change it to:
> 
> (nvq->upend_idx + 1) % UIO_MAXIOV != nvq->done_idx.

But what I would really like to try is limit ubuf_info to VHOST_MAX_PEND.
I think this has a chance to improve performance since
we'll be using less cache.
Of course this means we must fix the code to really never submit
more than VHOST_MAX_PEND requests.

Want to try?
> 
> With this change on top, I didn't see performance difference w/ and w/o
> this patch.

Did you try small message sizes btw (like 1K)? Or just netperf
default of 64K?

-- 
MST