From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
To: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/3] virtio-net: split out clean affinity function
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:28:32 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5101FBE0.7040505@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1358767524-17934-2-git-send-email-gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
On 01/21/2013 07:25 PM, Wanlong Gao wrote:
> Split out the clean affinity function to virtnet_clean_affinity().
>
> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@gmail.com>
> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> V5->V6: NEW
>
> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> index 70cd957..1a35a8c 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> @@ -1016,48 +1016,57 @@ static int virtnet_vlan_rx_kill_vid(struct net_device *dev, u16 vid)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static void virtnet_set_affinity(struct virtnet_info *vi, bool set)
> +static void virtnet_clean_affinity(struct virtnet_info *vi, long hcpu)
> {
> int i;
> int cpu;
>
> - /* In multiqueue mode, when the number of cpu is equal to the number of
> - * queue pairs, we let the queue pairs to be private to one cpu by
> - * setting the affinity hint to eliminate the contention.
> - */
> - if ((vi->curr_queue_pairs == 1 ||
> - vi->max_queue_pairs != num_online_cpus()) && set) {
> - if (vi->affinity_hint_set)
> - set = false;
> - else
> - return;
> - }
> -
> - if (set) {
> - i = 0;
> - for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> - virtqueue_/set_affinity(vi->rq[i].vq, cpu);
> - virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->sq[i].vq, cpu);
> - *per_cpu_ptr(vi->vq_index, cpu) = i;
> - i++;
> - }
> -
> - vi->affinity_hint_set = true;
> - } else {
> - for(i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
> + if (vi->affinity_hint_set) {
> + for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
> virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->rq[i].vq, -1);
> virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->sq[i].vq, -1);
> }
>
> i = 0;
> - for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> + if (cpu == hcpu)
> + continue;
> *per_cpu_ptr(vi->vq_index, cpu) =
> ++i % vi->curr_queue_pairs;
> + }
>
Some questions here:
- Did we need reset the affinity of the queue here like the this?
virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->sq[*per_cpu_ptr(vi->vq_index, hcpu)], -1);
virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->rq[*per_cpu_ptr(vi->vq_index, hcpu)], -1);
- Looks like we need also reset the percpu index when
vi->affinity_hint_set is false.
- Does this really need this reset? Consider we're going to reset the
percpu in CPU_DEAD?
Thanks
> vi->affinity_hint_set = false;
> }
> }
>
> +static void virtnet_set_affinity(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> +{
> + int i;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + /* In multiqueue mode, when the number of cpu is equal to the number of
> + * queue pairs, we let the queue pairs to be private to one cpu by
> + * setting the affinity hint to eliminate the contention.
> + */
> + if (vi->curr_queue_pairs == 1 ||
> + vi->max_queue_pairs != num_online_cpus()) {
> + if (vi->affinity_hint_set)
> + virtnet_clean_affinity(vi, -1);
> + else
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + i = 0;
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> + virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->rq[i].vq, cpu);
> + virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->sq[i].vq, cpu);
> + *per_cpu_ptr(vi->vq_index, cpu) = i;
> + i++;
> + }
> +
> + vi->affinity_hint_set = true;
> +}
> +
> static void virtnet_get_ringparam(struct net_device *dev,
> struct ethtool_ringparam *ring)
> {
> @@ -1105,7 +1114,7 @@ static int virtnet_set_channels(struct net_device *dev,
> netif_set_real_num_rx_queues(dev, queue_pairs);
>
> get_online_cpus();
> - virtnet_set_affinity(vi, true);
> + virtnet_set_affinity(vi);
> put_online_cpus();
> }
>
> @@ -1274,7 +1283,7 @@ static void virtnet_del_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> {
> struct virtio_device *vdev = vi->vdev;
>
> - virtnet_set_affinity(vi, false);
> + virtnet_clean_affinity(vi, -1);
>
> vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev);
>
> @@ -1398,7 +1407,7 @@ static int init_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> goto err_free;
>
> get_online_cpus();
> - virtnet_set_affinity(vi, true);
> + virtnet_set_affinity(vi);
> put_online_cpus();
>
> return 0;
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
To: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@gmail.com>,
virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/3] virtio-net: split out clean affinity function
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 11:28:32 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5101FBE0.7040505@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1358767524-17934-2-git-send-email-gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
On 01/21/2013 07:25 PM, Wanlong Gao wrote:
> Split out the clean affinity function to virtnet_clean_affinity().
>
> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@gmail.com>
> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> V5->V6: NEW
>
> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> index 70cd957..1a35a8c 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> @@ -1016,48 +1016,57 @@ static int virtnet_vlan_rx_kill_vid(struct net_device *dev, u16 vid)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static void virtnet_set_affinity(struct virtnet_info *vi, bool set)
> +static void virtnet_clean_affinity(struct virtnet_info *vi, long hcpu)
> {
> int i;
> int cpu;
>
> - /* In multiqueue mode, when the number of cpu is equal to the number of
> - * queue pairs, we let the queue pairs to be private to one cpu by
> - * setting the affinity hint to eliminate the contention.
> - */
> - if ((vi->curr_queue_pairs == 1 ||
> - vi->max_queue_pairs != num_online_cpus()) && set) {
> - if (vi->affinity_hint_set)
> - set = false;
> - else
> - return;
> - }
> -
> - if (set) {
> - i = 0;
> - for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> - virtqueue_/set_affinity(vi->rq[i].vq, cpu);
> - virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->sq[i].vq, cpu);
> - *per_cpu_ptr(vi->vq_index, cpu) = i;
> - i++;
> - }
> -
> - vi->affinity_hint_set = true;
> - } else {
> - for(i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
> + if (vi->affinity_hint_set) {
> + for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
> virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->rq[i].vq, -1);
> virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->sq[i].vq, -1);
> }
>
> i = 0;
> - for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> + if (cpu == hcpu)
> + continue;
> *per_cpu_ptr(vi->vq_index, cpu) =
> ++i % vi->curr_queue_pairs;
> + }
>
Some questions here:
- Did we need reset the affinity of the queue here like the this?
virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->sq[*per_cpu_ptr(vi->vq_index, hcpu)], -1);
virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->rq[*per_cpu_ptr(vi->vq_index, hcpu)], -1);
- Looks like we need also reset the percpu index when
vi->affinity_hint_set is false.
- Does this really need this reset? Consider we're going to reset the
percpu in CPU_DEAD?
Thanks
> vi->affinity_hint_set = false;
> }
> }
>
> +static void virtnet_set_affinity(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> +{
> + int i;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + /* In multiqueue mode, when the number of cpu is equal to the number of
> + * queue pairs, we let the queue pairs to be private to one cpu by
> + * setting the affinity hint to eliminate the contention.
> + */
> + if (vi->curr_queue_pairs == 1 ||
> + vi->max_queue_pairs != num_online_cpus()) {
> + if (vi->affinity_hint_set)
> + virtnet_clean_affinity(vi, -1);
> + else
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + i = 0;
> + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> + virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->rq[i].vq, cpu);
> + virtqueue_set_affinity(vi->sq[i].vq, cpu);
> + *per_cpu_ptr(vi->vq_index, cpu) = i;
> + i++;
> + }
> +
> + vi->affinity_hint_set = true;
> +}
> +
> static void virtnet_get_ringparam(struct net_device *dev,
> struct ethtool_ringparam *ring)
> {
> @@ -1105,7 +1114,7 @@ static int virtnet_set_channels(struct net_device *dev,
> netif_set_real_num_rx_queues(dev, queue_pairs);
>
> get_online_cpus();
> - virtnet_set_affinity(vi, true);
> + virtnet_set_affinity(vi);
> put_online_cpus();
> }
>
> @@ -1274,7 +1283,7 @@ static void virtnet_del_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> {
> struct virtio_device *vdev = vi->vdev;
>
> - virtnet_set_affinity(vi, false);
> + virtnet_clean_affinity(vi, -1);
>
> vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev);
>
> @@ -1398,7 +1407,7 @@ static int init_vqs(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> goto err_free;
>
> get_online_cpus();
> - virtnet_set_affinity(vi, true);
> + virtnet_set_affinity(vi);
> put_online_cpus();
>
> return 0;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-25 3:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-21 11:25 [PATCH V6 1/3] virtio-net: fix the set affinity bug when CPU IDs are not consecutive Wanlong Gao
2013-01-21 11:25 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-21 11:25 ` [PATCH V6 2/3] virtio-net: split out clean affinity function Wanlong Gao
2013-01-21 11:25 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-25 3:28 ` Jason Wang [this message]
2013-01-25 3:28 ` Jason Wang
2013-01-25 4:20 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-25 4:20 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-25 5:13 ` Jason Wang
2013-01-25 5:13 ` Jason Wang
2013-01-25 5:40 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-25 5:40 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-25 6:12 ` Jason Wang
2013-01-25 6:12 ` Jason Wang
2013-01-25 6:42 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-25 6:42 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-25 7:04 ` Jason Wang
2013-01-25 7:04 ` Jason Wang
2013-01-25 7:22 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-25 7:22 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-21 11:25 ` [PATCH V6 3/3] virtio-net: reset virtqueue affinity when doing cpu hotplug Wanlong Gao
2013-01-21 11:25 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-22 1:12 ` [PATCH V6 1/3] virtio-net: fix the set affinity bug when CPU IDs are not consecutive Rusty Russell
2013-01-22 1:12 ` Rusty Russell
2013-01-24 2:28 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-24 2:28 ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-24 17:19 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-01-24 17:19 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2013-01-25 3:26 ` Jason Wang
2013-01-25 3:26 ` 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=5101FBE0.7040505@redhat.com \
--to=jasowang@redhat.com \
--cc=erdnetdev@gmail.com \
--cc=gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mst@redhat.com \
--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.