From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751072AbbLBFEM (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 00:04:12 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49174 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750761AbbLBFEK (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 00:04:10 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] vhost_net: basic polling support To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" References: <1448435489-5949-1-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <1448435489-5949-4-git-send-email-jasowang@redhat.com> <20151130124233-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <565D2D7D.4010903@redhat.com> <20151201163939-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jason Wang Message-ID: <565E7BC3.2060107@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:04:03 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151201163939-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/01/2015 10:43 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 01:17:49PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> >> On 11/30/2015 06:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 03:11:29PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>> This patch tries to poll for new added tx buffer or socket receive >>>>> queue for a while at the end of tx/rx processing. The maximum time >>>>> spent on polling were specified through a new kind of vring ioctl. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang >>> One further enhancement would be to actually poll >>> the underlying device. This should be reasonably >>> straight-forward with macvtap (especially in the >>> passthrough mode). >>> >>> >> Yes, it is. I have some patches to do this by replacing >> skb_queue_empty() with sk_busy_loop() but for tap. > We probably don't want to do this unconditionally, though. > >> Tests does not show >> any improvement but some regression. > Did you add code to call sk_mark_napi_id on tap then? > sk_busy_loop won't do anything useful without. Yes I did. Probably something wrong elsewhere. > >> Maybe it's better to test macvtap. > Same thing ... >