From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Shirley Ma <mashirle@us.ibm.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au>,
davem@davemloft.net, kvm@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] virtio_net: remove send completion interrupts and avoid TX queue overrun through packet drop
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:28:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110324142822.GD12958@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r59xbbr6.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:00:53AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > With simply removing the notify here, it does help the case when TX
> > overrun hits too often, for example for 1K message size, the single
> > TCP_STREAM performance improved from 2.xGb/s to 4.xGb/s.
>
> OK, we'll be getting rid of the "kick on full", so please delete that on
> all benchmarks.
>
> Now, does the capacity check before add_buf() still win anything? I
> can't see how unless we have some weird bug.
>
> Once we've sorted that out, we should look at the more radical change
> of publishing last_used and using that to intuit whether interrupts
> should be sent. If we're not careful with ordering and barriers that
> could introduce more bugs.
Right. I am working on this, and trying to be careful.
One thing I'm in doubt about: sometimes we just want to
disable interrupts. Should still use flags in that case?
I thought that if we make the published index 0 to vq->num - 1,
then a special value in the index field could disable
interrupts completely. We could even reuse the space
for the flags field to stick the index in. Too complex?
> Anything else on the optimization agenda I've missed?
>
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
Several other things I am looking at, wellcome cooperation:
1. It's probably a good idea to update avail index
immediately instead of upon kick: for RX
this might help parallelism with the host.
2. Adding an API to add a single buffer instead of s/g,
seems to help a bit.
3. For TX sometimes we free a single buffer, sometimes
a ton of them, which might make the transmit latency
vary. It's probably a good idea to limit this,
maybe free the minimal number possible to keep the device
going without stops, maybe free up to MAX_SKB_FRAGS.
4. If the ring is full, we now notify right after
the first entry is consumed. For TX this is suboptimal,
we should try delaying the interrupt on host.
More ideas, would be nice if someone can try them out:
1. We are allocating/freeing buffers for indirect descriptors.
Use some kind of pool instead?
And we could preformat part of the descriptor.
2. I didn't have time to work on virtio2 ideas presented
at the kvm forum yet, any takers?
--
MST
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-24 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-17 0:12 [PATCH 2/2] virtio_net: remove send completion interrupts and avoid TX queue overrun through packet drop Shirley Ma
2011-03-17 5:02 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-03-17 15:18 ` Shirley Ma
2011-03-18 3:28 ` Shirley Ma
2011-03-18 13:15 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-03-18 16:54 ` Shirley Ma
2011-03-17 5:10 ` Rusty Russell
2011-03-17 15:10 ` Shirley Ma
2011-03-18 13:33 ` Herbert Xu
2011-03-19 1:41 ` Shirley Ma
2011-03-21 18:03 ` Shirley Ma
2011-03-22 11:36 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-03-23 2:26 ` Shirley Ma
2011-03-24 0:30 ` Rusty Russell
2011-03-24 4:14 ` Shirley Ma
2011-03-24 14:28 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2011-03-24 17:46 ` Shirley Ma
2011-03-24 18:10 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-03-25 4:51 ` Rusty Russell
2011-03-25 4:50 ` Rusty Russell
2011-03-27 7:52 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2011-04-04 6:13 ` Rusty Russell
2011-03-24 0:16 ` Rusty Russell
2011-03-24 6:39 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
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=20110324142822.GD12958@redhat.com \
--to=mst@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=herbert@gondor.hengli.com.au \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mashirle@us.ibm.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rusty@rustcorp.com.au \
/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).