From: Andrew Bennieston <andrew.bennieston@citrix.com>
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>, <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
<paul.durrant@citrix.com>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
<david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 net-next 1/5] xen-netback: Factor queue-specific data into queue struct.
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 11:53:35 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5326E23F.8050304@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1394812505.6442.128.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
On 14/03/14 15:55, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:47 +0000, Andrew J. Bennieston wrote:
>> From: "Andrew J. Bennieston" <andrew.bennieston@citrix.com>
>>
>> In preparation for multi-queue support in xen-netback, move the
>> queue-specific data from struct xenvif into struct xenvif_queue, and
>> update the rest of the code to use this.
>>
>> Also[...]
>>
>> Finally,[...]
>
> This is already quite a big patch, and I don't think the commit log
> covers everything it changes/refactors, does it?
>
> It's always a good idea to break these things apart but in particular
> separating the mechanical stuff (s/vif/queue/g) from the non-mechanical
> stuff, since the mechanical stuff is essentially trivial to review and
> getting it out the way makes the non-mechanical stuff much easier to
> check (or even spot).
>
The vast majority of changes in this patch are s/vif/queue/g. The rest
are related changes, such as inserting loops over queues, and moving
queue-specific initialisation away from the vif-wide initialisation, so
that it can be done once per queue.
I consider these things to be logically related and definitely within
the purview of this single patch. Without doing this, it is difficult to
get a patch that results in something that even compiles, without
putting in a bunch of placeholder code that will be removed in the very
next patch.
When I split this feature into multiple patches, I took care to group
as little as possible into this first patch (and the same for netfront).
It is still a large patch, but by my count most of this is a simple
replacement of vif with queue...
A first-order approximation, searching for line pairs where the first
has 'vif' and the second has 'queue', yields:
➜ xen-netback git:(saturn) git show HEAD~4 | grep -A 1 vif | grep queue
| wc -l
380
i.e. 760 (=380*2) lines out of the 2240 (~ 40%) are trivial replacements
of vif with queue, and this is not counting multi-line replacements, of
which there are many. What remains is mostly adding loops over these
queues. This could, in principle, be done in a second patch, but the
impact of this is small.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andrew J. Bennieston <andrew.bennieston@citrix.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/xen-netback/common.h | 85 ++++--
>> drivers/net/xen-netback/interface.c | 329 ++++++++++++++--------
>> drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c | 530 ++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>> drivers/net/xen-netback/xenbus.c | 87 ++++--
>> 4 files changed, 608 insertions(+), 423 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/common.h b/drivers/net/xen-netback/common.h
>> index ae413a2..4176539 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/common.h
>> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/common.h
>> @@ -108,17 +108,39 @@ struct xenvif_rx_meta {
>> */
>> #define MAX_GRANT_COPY_OPS (MAX_SKB_FRAGS * XEN_NETIF_RX_RING_SIZE)
>>
>> -struct xenvif {
>> - /* Unique identifier for this interface. */
>> - domid_t domid;
>> - unsigned int handle;
>> +/* Queue name is interface name with "-qNNN" appended */
>> +#define QUEUE_NAME_SIZE (IFNAMSIZ + 6)
>
> One more than necessary? Or does IFNAMSIZ not include the NULL? (I can't
> figure out if it does or not!)
interface.c contains the line:
snprintf(name, IFNAMSIZ - 1, "vif%u.%u", domid, handle);
This suggests that IFNAMSIZ counts the trailing NULL, so I can reduce
this count by 1 on that basis.
>
>> [...]
>> - /* This array is allocated seperately as it is large */
>> - struct gnttab_copy *grant_copy_op;
>> + struct gnttab_copy grant_copy_op[MAX_GRANT_COPY_OPS];
>
> Is this deliberate? It seems like a retrograde step reverting parts of
> ac3d5ac27735 "xen-netback: fix guest-receive-side array sizes" from Paul
> (at least you are nuking a speeling erorr)
Yes, this was deliberate. These arrays were moved out to avoid problems
with kmalloc for the struct net_device (which contains the struct xenvif
in its netdev_priv space). Since the queues are now allocated via
vzalloc, there is no need to do separate allocations (with the
requirement to also separately free on every error/teardown path) so I
moved these back into the main queue structure.
>
> How does this series interact with Zoltan's foreign mapping one? Badly I
> should imagine, are you going to rebase?
I'm working on the rebase right now.
>
>> + /* First, check if there is only one queue to optimise the
>> + * single-queue or old frontend scenario.
>> + */
>> + if (vif->num_queues == 1) {
>> + queue_index = 0;
>> + } else {
>> + /* Use skb_get_hash to obtain an L4 hash if available */
>> + hash = skb_get_hash(skb);
>> + queue_index = (u16) (((u64)hash * vif->num_queues) >> 32);
>
> No modulo num_queues here?
>
> Is the multiply and shift from some best practice somewhere? Or else
> what is it doing?
It seems to be what a bunch of other net drivers do in this scenario. I
guess the reasoning is it'll be faster than a mod num_queues.
>
>
>> + /* Obtain the queue to be used to transmit this packet */
>> + index = skb_get_queue_mapping(skb);
>> + if (index >= vif->num_queues)
>> + index = 0; /* Fall back to queue 0 if out of range */
>
> Is this actually allowed to happen?
>
> Even if yes, not modulo num_queue so spread it around a bit?
This probably isn't allowed to happen. I figured it didn't hurt to be a
little defensive with the code here, and falling back to queue 0 is a
fairly safe thing to do.
>> static void xenvif_up(struct xenvif *vif)
>> {
>> - napi_enable(&vif->napi);
>> - enable_irq(vif->tx_irq);
>> - if (vif->tx_irq != vif->rx_irq)
>> - enable_irq(vif->rx_irq);
>> - xenvif_check_rx_xenvif(vif);
>> + struct xenvif_queue *queue = NULL;
>> + unsigned int queue_index;
>> +
>> + for (queue_index = 0; queue_index < vif->num_queues; ++queue_index) {
>
> This vif->num_queues -- is it the same as dev->num_tx_queues? Or areew
> there differing concepts of queue around?
It should be the same as dev->real_num_tx_queues, which may be less than
dev->num_tx_queues.
>> + queue = &vif->queues[queue_index];
>> + napi_enable(&queue->napi);
>> + enable_irq(queue->tx_irq);
>> + if (queue->tx_irq != queue->rx_irq)
>> + enable_irq(queue->rx_irq);
>> + xenvif_check_rx_xenvif(queue);
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> static void xenvif_down(struct xenvif *vif)
>> {
>> - napi_disable(&vif->napi);
>> - disable_irq(vif->tx_irq);
>> - if (vif->tx_irq != vif->rx_irq)
>> - disable_irq(vif->rx_irq);
>> - del_timer_sync(&vif->credit_timeout);
>> + struct xenvif_queue *queue = NULL;
>> + unsigned int queue_index;
>
> Why unsigned?
Why not? You can't have a negative number of queues. Zero indicates "I
don't have any set up yet". I'm not expecting people to have 4 billion
or so queues, but equally I can't see a valid use for negative values
here.
>
>> @@ -496,9 +497,30 @@ static void connect(struct backend_info *be)
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> - xen_net_read_rate(dev, &be->vif->credit_bytes,
>> - &be->vif->credit_usec);
>> - be->vif->remaining_credit = be->vif->credit_bytes;
>> + xen_net_read_rate(dev, &credit_bytes, &credit_usec);
>> + read_xenbus_vif_flags(be);
>> +
>> + be->vif->num_queues = 1;
>> + be->vif->queues = vzalloc(be->vif->num_queues *
>> + sizeof(struct xenvif_queue));
>> +
>> + for (queue_index = 0; queue_index < be->vif->num_queues; ++queue_index) {
>> + queue = &be->vif->queues[queue_index];
>> + queue->vif = be->vif;
>> + queue->id = queue_index;
>> + snprintf(queue->name, sizeof(queue->name), "%s-q%u",
>> + be->vif->dev->name, queue->id);
>> +
>> + xenvif_init_queue(queue);
>> +
>> + queue->remaining_credit = credit_bytes;
>> +
>> + err = connect_rings(be, queue);
>> + if (err)
>> + goto err;
>> + }
>> +
>> + xenvif_carrier_on(be->vif);
>>
>> unregister_hotplug_status_watch(be);
>> err = xenbus_watch_pathfmt(dev, &be->hotplug_status_watch,
>> @@ -507,18 +529,24 @@ static void connect(struct backend_info *be)
>> if (!err)
>> be->have_hotplug_status_watch = 1;
>>
>> - netif_wake_queue(be->vif->dev);
>> + netif_tx_wake_all_queues(be->vif->dev);
>> +
>> + return;
>> +
>> +err:
>> + vfree(be->vif->queues);
>> + be->vif->queues = NULL;
>> + be->vif->num_queues = 0;
>> + return;
>
> Do you not need to unwind the setup already done on the previous queues
> before the failure?
Err... yes. I was sure that code existed at some point, but I can't find
it now. Oops!
-Andrew
>
>> }
>>
>>
>> -static int connect_rings(struct backend_info *be)
>> +static int connect_rings(struct backend_info *be, struct xenvif_queue *queue)
>> {
>> - struct xenvif *vif = be->vif;
>> struct xenbus_device *dev = be->dev;
>> unsigned long tx_ring_ref, rx_ring_ref;
>> - unsigned int tx_evtchn, rx_evtchn, rx_copy;
>> + unsigned int tx_evtchn, rx_evtchn;
>> int err;
>> - int val;
>>
>> err = xenbus_gather(XBT_NIL, dev->otherend,
>> "tx-ring-ref", "%lu", &tx_ring_ref,
>> @@ -546,6 +574,27 @@ static int connect_rings(struct backend_info *be)
>> rx_evtchn = tx_evtchn;
>> }
>>
>> + /* Map the shared frame, irq etc. */
>> + err = xenvif_connect(queue, tx_ring_ref, rx_ring_ref,
>> + tx_evtchn, rx_evtchn);
>> + if (err) {
>> + xenbus_dev_fatal(dev, err,
>> + "mapping shared-frames %lu/%lu port tx %u rx %u",
>> + tx_ring_ref, rx_ring_ref,
>> + tx_evtchn, rx_evtchn);
>> + return err;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-17 11:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-03 11:47 [PATCH V6 net-next 0/5] xen-net{back, front}: Multiple transmit and receive queues Andrew J. Bennieston
2014-03-03 11:47 ` [PATCH V6 net-next 1/5] xen-netback: Factor queue-specific data into queue struct Andrew J. Bennieston
2014-03-14 15:55 ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-17 11:53 ` Andrew Bennieston [this message]
2014-03-17 12:19 ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-03 11:47 ` [PATCH V6 net-next 2/5] xen-netback: Add support for multiple queues Andrew J. Bennieston
2014-03-14 16:03 ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-18 10:48 ` Andrew Bennieston
2014-03-18 10:56 ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-03 11:47 ` [PATCH V6 net-next 3/5] xen-netfront: Factor queue-specific data into queue struct Andrew J. Bennieston
2014-03-03 11:47 ` [PATCH V6 net-next 4/5] xen-netfront: Add support for multiple queues Andrew J. Bennieston
2014-03-03 11:47 ` [PATCH V6 net-next 5/5] xen-net{back, front}: Document multi-queue feature in netif.h Andrew J. Bennieston
2014-03-03 12:53 ` [PATCH V6 net-next 5/5] xen-net{back,front}: " Paul Durrant
2014-03-14 16:04 ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-05 12:38 ` [PATCH V6 net-next 0/5] xen-net{back,front}: Multiple transmit and receive queues Wei Liu
2014-03-05 17:46 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH V6 net-next 0/5] xen-net{back, front}: " Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2014-03-06 16:52 ` Sander Eikelenboom
2014-03-14 16:06 ` Ian Campbell
2014-03-14 16:21 ` Sander Eikelenboom
2014-03-14 16:10 ` [PATCH V6 net-next 0/5] xen-net{back,front}: " Ian Campbell
2014-03-14 16:16 ` [Xen-devel] [PATCH V6 net-next 0/5] xen-net{back, front}: " Ian Campbell
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=5326E23F.8050304@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.bennieston@citrix.com \
--cc=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.durrant@citrix.com \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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).