From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Yuanhan Liu <yliu@fridaylinux.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/21] vhost: iotlb: reduce iotlb read lock
	usage
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 12:18:21 +0800
Message-ID: <20170911041821.GI9736@yliu-home>
References: <20170831095023.21037-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
 <20170831095023.21037-22-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: dev@dpdk.org, jfreiman@redhat.com, tiwei.bie@intel.com, mst@redhat.com,
 vkaplans@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com
To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Received: from mail-pg0-f41.google.com (mail-pg0-f41.google.com [74.125.83.41])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B337F1F5
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Mon, 11 Sep 2017 06:18:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail-pg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id i130so6003949pgc.3
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Sun, 10 Sep 2017 21:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170831095023.21037-22-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:50:23AM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> Prior to this patch, iotlb cache's read/write lock was
> read-locked at every guest IOVA to app VA translation,
> i.e. at least once per packet with indirect off and twice
> with indirect on.
> 
> The problem is that rte_rwlock_read_lock() makes use of atomic
> operation, which is costly.
> 
> This patch introduces iotlb lock helpers, so that a full burst
> can be protected with taking the lock once, which reduces the
> number of atomic operations by up to 64 with indirect
> descriptors.

You were assuming there is no single miss during a burst. If a miss
happens, it requries 2 locks: one for _pending_miss and another one
for _pending_insert. From this point of view, it's actually more
expensive.

However, I won't call it's a bad assumption (for the case of virtio
PMD). And if you take this assumption, why not just deleting the
pending list and moving the lock outside the _iotlb_find function()
like what you did in this patch?

I don't really see the point of introducing the pending list.

	--yliu