From: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@citrix.com>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
<paul.durrant@citrix.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <jonathan.davies@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Revert "xen-netback: Aggregate TX unmap operations"
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:57:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5332B27E.4040205@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1395653207.19365.1.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
On 24/03/14 09:26, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-03-21 at 17:23 +0000, Zoltan Kiss wrote:
>> This reverts commit e9275f5e2df1b2098a8cc405d87b88b9affd73e6. This commit is the
>> last in the netback grant mapping series, and it tries to do more aggressive
>> aggreagtion of unmap operations. However practical use showed almost no
>> positive effect, whilst with certain frontends it causes significant performance
>> regression.
>
> That's a shame -- do you have any insight into why?
It cause performance regression when the guest limits itself to a small
amount of outstanding packets. E.g. with iperf on Win7 there are always
2 in flight.
Currently batching happens in this way:
- the callback can put up to MAX_SKB_FRAGS slots into the dealloc ring
before it wakes up the dealloc thread
- the thread doesn't schedule immediately, of course, so other callbacks
can add to the dealloc ring in the meantime
- and even when the dealloc thread consumes the dealloc ring, the
callbacks can put slots onto it
And my upcoming patch will avoid TLB flush in a lot of cases. If someone
has more time to research a better strategy, that would be good, but I
think currently it is a low priority thing.
Zoli
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-26 10:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-21 17:23 [PATCH net-next] Revert "xen-netback: Aggregate TX unmap operations" Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-24 9:26 ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-25 22:58 ` David Miller
2014-03-25 22:58 ` David Miller
2014-03-26 10:57 ` Zoltan Kiss [this message]
2014-03-26 10:57 ` Zoltan Kiss
2014-03-24 9:26 ` Ian Campbell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-03-21 17:23 Zoltan Kiss
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=5332B27E.4040205@citrix.com \
--to=zoltan.kiss@citrix.com \
--cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=jonathan.davies@citrix.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.durrant@citrix.com \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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.