Re: [PATCH v4 0/3] virtio support cache indirect desc

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2021 at 02:52:07PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2021 07:53:44 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 10:47:40PM +0800, Xuan Zhuo wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Nov 2021 08:49:27 -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hmm a bunch of comments got ignored. See e.g.
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211027043851-mutt-send-email-mst%40kernel.org
> > > > if they aren't relevant add code comments or commit log text explaining the
> > > > design choice please.
> > >
> > > I should have responded to related questions, I am guessing whether some emails
> > > have been lost.
> > >
> > > I have sorted out the following 6 questions, if there are any missing questions,
> > > please let me know.
> > >
> > > 1. use list_head
> > >   In the earliest version, I used pointers directly. You suggest that I use
> > >   llist_head, but considering that llist_head has atomic operations. There is no
> > >   competition problem here, so I used list_head.
> > >
> > >   In fact, I did not increase the allocated space for list_head.
> > >
> > >   use as desc array: | vring_desc | vring_desc | vring_desc | vring_desc |
> > >   use as queue item: | list_head ........................................|
> >
> > the concern is that you touch many cache lines when removing an entry.
> >
> > I suggest something like:
> >
> > llist: add a non-atomic list_del_first
> >
> > One has to know what one's doing, but if one has locked the list
> > preventing all accesses, then it's ok to just pop off an entry without
> > atomics.
> >
> 
> Oh, great, but my way of solving the problem is too conservative.
> 
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/llist.h b/include/linux/llist.h
> > index 24f207b0190b..13a47dddb12b 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/llist.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/llist.h
> > @@ -247,6 +247,17 @@ static inline struct llist_node *__llist_del_all(struct llist_head *head)
> >
> >  extern struct llist_node *llist_del_first(struct llist_head *head);
> >
> > +static inline struct llist_node *__llist_del_first(struct llist_head *head)
> > +{
> > +	struct llist_node *first = head->first;
> > +
> > +	if (!first)
> > +		return NULL;
> > +
> > +	head->first = first->next;
> > +	return first;
> > +}
> > +
> >  struct llist_node *llist_reverse_order(struct llist_node *head);
> >
> >  #endif /* LLIST_H */
> >
> >
> > -----
> >
> >
> > > 2.
> > > > > +	if (vq->use_desc_cache && total_sg <= VIRT_QUEUE_CACHE_DESC_NUM) {
> > > > > +		if (vq->desc_cache_chain) {
> > > > > +			desc = vq->desc_cache_chain;
> > > > > +			vq->desc_cache_chain = (void *)desc->addr;
> > > > > +			goto got;
> > > > > +		}
> > > > > +		n = VIRT_QUEUE_CACHE_DESC_NUM;
> > > >
> > > > Hmm. This will allocate more entries than actually used. Why do it?
> > >
> > >
> > > This is because the size of each cache item is fixed, and the logic has been
> > > modified in the latest code. I think this problem no longer exists.
> > >
> > >
> > > 3.
> > > > What bothers me here is what happens if cache gets
> > > > filled on one numa node, then used on another?
> > >
> > > I'm thinking about another question, how did the cross-numa appear here, and
> > > virtio desc queue also has the problem of cross-numa. So is it necessary for us
> > > to deal with the cross-numa scene?
> >
> > It's true that desc queue might be cross numa, and people are looking
> > for ways to improve that. Not a reason to make things worse ...
> >
> 
> I will test for it.
> 
> >
> > > Indirect desc is used as virtio desc, so as long as it is in the same numa as
> > > virito desc. So we can allocate indirect desc cache at the same time when
> > > allocating virtio desc queue.
> >
> > Using it from current node like we do now seems better.
> >
> > > 4.
> > > > So e.g. for rx, we are wasting memory since indirect isn't used.
> > >
> > > In the current version, desc cache is set up based on pre-queue.
> > >
> > > So if the desc cache is not used, we don't need to set the desc cache.
> > >
> > > For example, virtio-net, as long as the tx queue and the rx queue in big packet
> > > mode enable desc cache.
> >
> >
> > I liked how in older versions adding indrect enabled it implicitly
> > though without need to hack drivers.
> 
> I see.
> 
> >
> > > 5.
> > > > Would a better API be a cache size in bytes? This controls how much
> > > > memory is spent after all.
> > >
> > > My design is to set a threshold. When total_sg is greater than this threshold,
> > > it will fall back to kmalloc/kfree. When total_sg is less than or equal to
> > > this threshold, use the allocated cache.
> > >
> >
> > I know. My question is this, do devices know what a good threshold is?
> > If yes how do they know?
> 
> I think the driver knows the threshold, for example, MAX_SKB_FRAG + 2 is a
> suitable threshold for virtio-net.
> 

I guess... in that case I assume it's a good idea to have
virtio core round the size up to whole cache lines, right?

> >
> > > 6. kmem_cache_*
> > >
> > > I have tested these, the performance is not as good as the method used in this
> > > patch.
> >
> > Do you mean kmem_cache_alloc_bulk/kmem_cache_free_bulk?
> > You mentioned just kmem_cache_alloc previously.
> 
> 
> I will test for kmem_cache_alloc_bulk.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >