From: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
Cc: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>,
"Garzik, Jeff" <jgarzik@pobox.com>,
Mitch Williams <mitch.a.williams@intel.com>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Brandeburg,
Jesse" <jesse.brandeburg@intel.com>,
"Kok, Auke" <auke@foo-projects.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:18:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060607191800.GB1241@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <x49d5dkvm8p.fsf@segfault.boston.redhat.com>
On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 02:44:54PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> ==> Regarding Re: [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI; Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com> adds:
>
> auke-jan.h.kok> Hi,
>
> auke-jan.h.kok> we're not too happy with this as it puts a branch right in
> auke-jan.h.kok> the regular receive path. We haven't ran the numbers on it
> auke-jan.h.kok> yet but it is likely that this will lower performance
> auke-jan.h.kok> significantly during normal receives for something that is
> auke-jan.h.kok> not common use.
>
> auke-jan.h.kok> Attached below a (revised) patch that adds proper locking
> auke-jan.h.kok> around the rx_clean to prevent the race.
>
> That patch locks around the tx clean routine. As such, it doesn't prevent
> the problem.
>
Further to that, do tests on this if you like, but I would certainly think a
properly formed conditional operation is going to provide better performance
than a spin_lock operation in the receive path. Why not just turn the:
if(netpoll_op)
into an
if(unlikely(netpoll_op))
I expect that will reduce the overhead of the conditional to effectively zero
for the normal receive case. The following patch does that, and I expect you
performance won't suffer at all:
Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
e1000_main.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
--- linux-2.6.9/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c.neil 2006-06-06 10:37:42.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6.9/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c 2006-06-07 10:48:22.000000000 -0400
@@ -3207,8 +3207,9 @@ e1000_update_stats(struct e1000_adapter
* @pt_regs: CPU registers structure
**/
+
static irqreturn_t
-e1000_intr(int irq, void *data, struct pt_regs *regs)
+__e1000_intr(int irq, void *data, struct pt_regs *regs, int netpoll_op)
{
struct net_device *netdev = data;
struct e1000_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev);
@@ -3217,6 +3218,7 @@ e1000_intr(int irq, void *data, struct p
#ifndef CONFIG_E1000_NAPI
int i;
#else
+ struct net_device *dev_to_sched;
/* Interrupt Auto-Mask...upon reading ICR,
* interrupts are masked. No need for the
* IMC write, but it does mean we should
@@ -3255,8 +3257,22 @@ e1000_intr(int irq, void *data, struct p
E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, IMC, ~0);
E1000_WRITE_FLUSH(hw);
}
- if (likely(netif_rx_schedule_prep(&adapter->polling_netdev[0])))
- __netif_rx_schedule(&adapter->polling_netdev[0]);
+
+ /*
+ * netpoll operations, in the interests of efficiency
+ * only do napi polling on the device passed to the
+ * poll_controller. Therefore, if we are preforming
+ * a netpoll operation, then we can't schedule a receive
+ * to one of the dummy net devices that exist for sole
+ * purpose of spreading out rx schedules
+ */
+ if (unlikely(netpoll_op))
+ dev_to_sched = netdev;
+ else
+ dev_to_sched = &adapter->polling_netdev[0];
+
+ if (likely(netif_rx_schedule_prep(dev_to_sched)))
+ __netif_rx_schedule(dev_to_sched);
else
e1000_irq_enable(adapter);
#else
@@ -3288,6 +3304,13 @@ e1000_intr(int irq, void *data, struct p
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
+static irqreturn_t
+e1000_intr(int irq, void *data, struct pt_regs *regs)
+{
+ return __e1000_intr(irq, data, regs, 0);
+}
+
+
#ifdef CONFIG_E1000_NAPI
/**
* e1000_clean - NAPI Rx polling callback
@@ -3300,7 +3323,6 @@ e1000_clean(struct net_device *poll_dev,
struct e1000_adapter *adapter;
int work_to_do = min(*budget, poll_dev->quota);
int tx_cleaned = 0, i = 0, work_done = 0;
-
/* Must NOT use netdev_priv macro here. */
adapter = poll_dev->priv;
@@ -3308,10 +3330,24 @@ e1000_clean(struct net_device *poll_dev,
if (!netif_carrier_ok(adapter->netdev))
goto quit_polling;
- while (poll_dev != &adapter->polling_netdev[i]) {
- i++;
- if (unlikely(i == adapter->num_rx_queues))
- BUG();
+ /*
+ * only search for a matching polling_netdev in the event
+ * that this isn't a real registered net_device
+ * A real net device can be passed in here in the event
+ * that netdump has been activated (this comes through
+ * netpoll_poll_dev). We detect this by virtue of the
+ * fact that each polling_netdev->priv points to the private
+ * data of its parent (registered) netdev. So if:
+ * poll_dev->priv == netdev_priv(poll_dev), its a real device
+ * otherwise its a polling_netdev.
+ */
+ if (likely(adapter != netdev_priv(poll_dev))) {
+ while (poll_dev != &adapter->polling_netdev[i]) {
+ i++;
+ if (unlikely(i == adapter->num_rx_queues))
+ BUG();
+ }
+
}
if (likely(adapter->num_tx_queues == 1)) {
@@ -4624,7 +4660,7 @@ e1000_netpoll(struct net_device *netdev)
{
struct e1000_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev);
disable_irq(adapter->pdev->irq);
- e1000_intr(adapter->pdev->irq, netdev, NULL);
+ __e1000_intr(adapter->pdev->irq, netdev, NULL, 1);
e1000_clean_tx_irq(adapter, adapter->tx_ring);
#ifndef CONFIG_E1000_NAPI
adapter->clean_rx(adapter, adapter->rx_ring);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-07 19:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-05 23:09 [PATCH 0/2] e1000: fixes for netpoll+NAPI, ARM Kok, Auke
2006-06-05 23:11 ` [PATCH 1/2] e1000: fix netpoll with NAPI Kok, Auke
2006-06-06 13:52 ` Neil Horman
2006-06-06 16:39 ` Mitch Williams
2006-06-06 17:05 ` Neil Horman
2006-06-06 17:18 ` Auke Kok
2006-06-06 17:30 ` Jeff Moyer
2006-06-06 17:34 ` Auke Kok
2006-06-06 17:42 ` Jeff Moyer
2006-06-06 23:17 ` Matt Mackall
2006-06-07 15:05 ` Neil Horman
2006-06-07 16:48 ` Matt Mackall
2006-06-07 18:25 ` Auke Kok
2006-06-07 18:44 ` Jeff Moyer
2006-06-07 19:18 ` Neil Horman [this message]
2006-06-08 17:19 ` Mitch Williams
2006-06-08 17:29 ` Jeff Moyer
2006-06-12 0:13 ` Neil Horman
2006-06-12 16:42 ` Mitch Williams
2006-06-12 18:06 ` Neil Horman
2006-06-14 20:41 ` Neil Horman
2006-06-14 23:44 ` Mitch Williams
2006-06-15 12:44 ` John W. Linville
2006-06-15 20:45 ` Mitch Williams
2006-06-20 8:28 ` Andrew Grover
2006-06-07 18:54 ` John W. Linville
2006-06-08 17:23 ` Mitch Williams
2006-06-08 18:39 ` John W. Linville
2006-06-06 17:29 ` Jeff Moyer
2006-06-05 23:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] e1000: remove risky prefetch on next_skb->data Kok, Auke
2006-06-05 23:21 ` Rick Jones
2006-06-06 0:12 ` Brandeburg, Jesse
2006-06-06 0:16 ` Rick Jones
2006-06-06 0:22 ` Andi Kleen
2006-06-06 0:26 ` Brandeburg, Jesse
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=20060607191800.GB1241@localhost.localdomain \
--to=nhorman@tuxdriver.com \
--cc=auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com \
--cc=auke@foo-projects.org \
--cc=jesse.brandeburg@intel.com \
--cc=jgarzik@pobox.com \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=mitch.a.williams@intel.com \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).