From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] ptr_ring: introduce batch dequeuing
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:43:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170322153638-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1490069087-4783-2-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com>
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:04:40PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/ptr_ring.h | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> index 6c70444..4771ded 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> @@ -247,6 +247,22 @@ static inline void *__ptr_ring_consume(struct ptr_ring *r)
> return ptr;
> }
>
> +static inline int __ptr_ring_consume_batched(struct ptr_ring *r,
> + void **array, int n)
> +{
> + void *ptr;
> + int i = 0;
> +
> + while (i < n) {
> + ptr = __ptr_ring_consume(r);
> + if (!ptr)
> + break;
> + array[i++] = ptr;
> + }
> +
> + return i;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Note: resize (below) nests producer lock within consumer lock, so if you
> * call this in interrupt or BH context, you must disable interrupts/BH when
This ignores the comment above that function:
/* Note: callers invoking this in a loop must use a compiler barrier,
* for example cpu_relax().
*/
Also - it looks like it shouldn't matter if reads are reordered but I wonder.
Thoughts? Including some reasoning about it in commit log would be nice.
> @@ -297,6 +313,55 @@ static inline void *ptr_ring_consume_bh(struct ptr_ring *r)
> return ptr;
> }
>
> +static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched(struct ptr_ring *r,
> + void **array, int n)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + spin_lock(&r->consumer_lock);
> + ret = __ptr_ring_consume_batched(r, array, n);
> + spin_unlock(&r->consumer_lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched_irq(struct ptr_ring *r,
> + void **array, int n)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&r->consumer_lock);
> + ret = __ptr_ring_consume_batched(r, array, n);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&r->consumer_lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched_any(struct ptr_ring *r,
> + void **array, int n)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int ret;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
> + ret = __ptr_ring_consume_batched(r, array, n);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched_bh(struct ptr_ring *r,
> + void **array, int n)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + spin_lock_bh(&r->consumer_lock);
> + ret = __ptr_ring_consume_batched(r, array, n);
> + spin_unlock_bh(&r->consumer_lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> /* Cast to structure type and call a function without discarding from FIFO.
> * Function must return a value.
> * Callers must take consumer_lock.
> --
> 2.7.4
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] ptr_ring: introduce batch dequeuing
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:43:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170322153638-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1490069087-4783-2-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com>
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:04:40PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> ---
> include/linux/ptr_ring.h | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 65 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> index 6c70444..4771ded 100644
> --- a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> +++ b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h
> @@ -247,6 +247,22 @@ static inline void *__ptr_ring_consume(struct ptr_ring *r)
> return ptr;
> }
>
> +static inline int __ptr_ring_consume_batched(struct ptr_ring *r,
> + void **array, int n)
> +{
> + void *ptr;
> + int i = 0;
> +
> + while (i < n) {
> + ptr = __ptr_ring_consume(r);
> + if (!ptr)
> + break;
> + array[i++] = ptr;
> + }
> +
> + return i;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Note: resize (below) nests producer lock within consumer lock, so if you
> * call this in interrupt or BH context, you must disable interrupts/BH when
This ignores the comment above that function:
/* Note: callers invoking this in a loop must use a compiler barrier,
* for example cpu_relax().
*/
Also - it looks like it shouldn't matter if reads are reordered but I wonder.
Thoughts? Including some reasoning about it in commit log would be nice.
> @@ -297,6 +313,55 @@ static inline void *ptr_ring_consume_bh(struct ptr_ring *r)
> return ptr;
> }
>
> +static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched(struct ptr_ring *r,
> + void **array, int n)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + spin_lock(&r->consumer_lock);
> + ret = __ptr_ring_consume_batched(r, array, n);
> + spin_unlock(&r->consumer_lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched_irq(struct ptr_ring *r,
> + void **array, int n)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&r->consumer_lock);
> + ret = __ptr_ring_consume_batched(r, array, n);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&r->consumer_lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched_any(struct ptr_ring *r,
> + void **array, int n)
> +{
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int ret;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
> + ret = __ptr_ring_consume_batched(r, array, n);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&r->consumer_lock, flags);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static inline int ptr_ring_consume_batched_bh(struct ptr_ring *r,
> + void **array, int n)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + spin_lock_bh(&r->consumer_lock);
> + ret = __ptr_ring_consume_batched(r, array, n);
> + spin_unlock_bh(&r->consumer_lock);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> /* Cast to structure type and call a function without discarding from FIFO.
> * Function must return a value.
> * Callers must take consumer_lock.
> --
> 2.7.4
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-22 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-03-21 4:04 [PATCH net-next 0/8] vhost-net rx batching Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` [PATCH net-next 1/8] ptr_ring: introduce batch dequeuing Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-21 10:25 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2017-03-22 3:16 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-22 3:16 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-22 13:43 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2017-03-22 13:43 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-03-23 5:33 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-23 5:33 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` [PATCH net-next 2/8] skb_array: " Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` [PATCH net-next 3/8] tun: export skb_array Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` [PATCH net-next 4/8] tap: " Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` [PATCH net-next 5/8] tun: support receiving skb through msg_control Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` [PATCH net-next 6/8] tap: support receiving skb from msg_control Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` [PATCH net-next 7/8] vhost_net: try batch dequing from skb array Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-22 14:16 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-03-22 14:16 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-03-23 5:34 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-23 5:34 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-29 9:58 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-29 10:46 ` Pankaj Gupta
2017-03-29 10:46 ` Pankaj Gupta
2017-03-29 10:53 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-29 10:53 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-29 21:47 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-03-29 21:47 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-03-29 9:58 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` [PATCH net-next 8/8] vhost_net: use lockless peeking for skb array during busy polling Jason Wang
2017-03-21 4:04 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-29 12:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-03-29 12:07 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-03-30 2:16 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-30 2:33 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-03-30 2:33 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2017-03-30 3:53 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-30 3:53 ` Jason Wang
2017-03-30 2:16 ` Jason Wang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170322153638-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.