From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753552Ab2DQFzH (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:55:07 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1646 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751298Ab2DQFzF (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Apr 2012 01:55:05 -0400 Message-ID: <4F8D05AF.4000309@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:54:55 +0800 From: Jason Wang User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120329 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" CC: netdev@vger.kernel.org, xma@us.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] vhost_net: don't poll on -EFAULT References: <20120416060749.14140.19433.stgit@intel-e5620-16-2.englab.nay.redhat.com> <20120416060833.14140.28139.stgit@intel-e5620-16-2.englab.nay.redhat.com> <20120416071646.GB25396@redhat.com> <4F8BD81A.7010507@redhat.com> <20120416133859.GB13190@redhat.com> <4F8CE305.9090100@redhat.com> <20120417045736.GA31278@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20120417045736.GA31278@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 04/17/2012 12:57 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:27:01AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 04/16/2012 09:39 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 04:28:10PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>> On 04/16/2012 03:16 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>>> >On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 02:08:33PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>>> >>Currently, we restart tx polling unconditionally when sendmsg() >>>>>>> >>fails. This would cause unnecessary wakeups of vhost wokers as it's >>>>>>> >>only needed when the socket send buffer were exceeded. >>>>>> >Why is this a problem? >>>>> > This issue is when guest driver is able to hit the >>>> -EFAULT, vhost >>>>> discard the the descriptor and restart the polling. This would wake >>>>> vhost thread and repeat the loop again which waste cpu. >>> Does same thing happen if we get an error from copy from user? >>> >> Right, so do you think it makes sense that we only restart polling >> on -EAGAIN or -ENOBUFS? > Sounds OK. BTW how do you test this? > Not very hard, w/o this patch, we can see almost 100% cpu utilization for vhost thread if guest hit EFAULT or EINVAL. With this patch, the cpu utilization should be very low I think.