public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.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, Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 2/3] virtio-net: split out clean affinity function
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:42:30 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51022956.3050406@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5102224C.3050909@redhat.com>

On 01/25/2013 02:12 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 01/25/2013 01:40 PM, Wanlong Gao wrote:
>> On 01/25/2013 01:13 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On 01/25/2013 12:20 PM, Wanlong Gao wrote:
>>>> On 01/25/2013 11:28 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> 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);
>>>> I think no, we are going to unset the affinity of all the set queues,
>>>> include hcpu.
>>>>
>>>>> - Looks like we need also reset the percpu index when
>>>>> vi->affinity_hint_set is false.
>>>> Yes, follow this and the comment on [1/3].
>>>>
>>>>> - Does this really need this reset? Consider we're going to reset the
>>>>> percpu in CPU_DEAD?
>>>> I think resetting when CPU_DOWN_PREPARE can avoid selecting the wrong queue
>>>> on the dying CPU.
>>> Didn't understand this. What does 'wrong queue' here mean? Looks like
>>> you didn't change the preferable queue of the dying CPU and just change
>>> all others.
>> How about setting the vq index to -1 on hcpu when doing DOWN_PREPARE?
>> So that let it select txq to 0 when the CPU is dying.
> 
> Looks safe, so look like what you're going to solve here is the the race
> between cpu hotplug and virtnet_set_channels(). A possible better
> solution is to serialize them by protecting virtnet_set_queues() by
> get_online_cpus() also. After this, we can make sure the number of
> channels were not changed during cpu hotplug, and looks like there's no
> need to reset the preferable queues in DOWN_PREPARE.
> 
> What's your opinion?

IMHO, serialize every time will take lock and may slow down this path,
but the hot unplug path will be more cold than it. So I prefer reset the
preferable queues in DOWN_PREPARE but not serialize them. Agree?

Thanks,
Wanlong Gao

> 
> Thanks
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Wanlong Gao
>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Wanlong Gao
>>>>
>>>>> 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;
>>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-25  6:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ 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 ` [PATCH V6 2/3] virtio-net: split out clean affinity function Wanlong Gao
2013-01-25  3:28   ` Jason Wang
2013-01-25  4:20     ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-25  5:13       ` Jason Wang
2013-01-25  5:40         ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-25  6:12           ` Jason Wang
2013-01-25  6:42             ` Wanlong Gao [this message]
2013-01-25  7:04               ` Jason Wang
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
2013-01-22  1:12 ` [PATCH V6 1/3] virtio-net: fix the set affinity bug when CPU IDs are not consecutive Rusty Russell
2013-01-24  2:28   ` Wanlong Gao
2013-01-24 17:19 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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=51022956.3050406@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --to=gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=erdnetdev@gmail.com \
    --cc=jasowang@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox