| Message ID | 1475573358-32414-6-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:29:16AM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: > From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> > > Instead of only placing one skb on the guest rx ring at a time, process > a batch of up-to 64. This improves performance by ~10% in some tests. And does it regress latency workloads? What are those 'some tests' you speak off? Thanks. > > Signed-off-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> > [re-based] > Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com> > --- > Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> > --- > drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c | 15 ++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c b/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c > index 9548709..ae822b8 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c > +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c > @@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ static void xenvif_rx_extra_slot(struct xenvif_queue *queue, > BUG(); > } > > -void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenvif_queue *queue) > +void xenvif_rx_skb(struct xenvif_queue *queue) > { > struct xenvif_pkt_state pkt; > > @@ -425,6 +425,19 @@ void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenvif_queue *queue) > xenvif_rx_complete(queue, &pkt); > } > > +#define RX_BATCH_SIZE 64 > + > +void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenvif_queue *queue) > +{ > + unsigned int work_done = 0; > + > + while (xenvif_rx_ring_slots_available(queue) && > + work_done < RX_BATCH_SIZE) { > + xenvif_rx_skb(queue); > + work_done++; > + } > +} > + > static bool xenvif_rx_queue_stalled(struct xenvif_queue *queue) > { > RING_IDX prod, cons; > -- > 2.1.4 > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
> -----Original Message----- > From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [mailto:konrad.wilk@oracle.com] > Sent: 04 October 2016 13:48 > To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com> > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wei Liu > <wei.liu2@citrix.com>; David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 net-next 5/7] xen-netback: process > guest rx packets in batches > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:29:16AM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: > > From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> > > > > Instead of only placing one skb on the guest rx ring at a time, > > process a batch of up-to 64. This improves performance by ~10% in some > tests. I believe the tests are mainly throughput tests, but David would know the specifics. > > And does it regress latency workloads? > It shouldn't, although I have not run ping-pong tests to verify. If packets are only placed on the vif queue singly though then the batching should have no effect, since rx_action will complete and do the push as before. Paul > What are those 'some tests' you speak off? > > Thanks. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> [re-based] > > Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@citrix.com> > > --- > > Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> > > --- > > drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c | 15 ++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c > > b/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c index 9548709..ae822b8 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c > > +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c > > @@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ static void xenvif_rx_extra_slot(struct > xenvif_queue *queue, > > BUG(); > > } > > > > -void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenvif_queue *queue) > > +void xenvif_rx_skb(struct xenvif_queue *queue) > > { > > struct xenvif_pkt_state pkt; > > > > @@ -425,6 +425,19 @@ void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenvif_queue > *queue) > > xenvif_rx_complete(queue, &pkt); > > } > > > > +#define RX_BATCH_SIZE 64 > > + > > +void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenvif_queue *queue) { > > + unsigned int work_done = 0; > > + > > + while (xenvif_rx_ring_slots_available(queue) && > > + work_done < RX_BATCH_SIZE) { > > + xenvif_rx_skb(queue); > > + work_done++; > > + } > > +} > > + > > static bool xenvif_rx_queue_stalled(struct xenvif_queue *queue) { > > RING_IDX prod, cons; > > -- > > 2.1.4 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xen-devel mailing list > > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > > https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
On 04/10/16 13:47, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 10:29:16AM +0100, Paul Durrant wrote: >> From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> >> >> Instead of only placing one skb on the guest rx ring at a time, process >> a batch of up-to 64. This improves performance by ~10% in some tests. > > And does it regress latency workloads? No. Because the loop outside of these batches is only checking for a fatal error condition or a disconnection. > What are those 'some tests' you speak off? I think it was aggregate intrahost, but I don't remember exactly. David
diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c b/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c index 9548709..ae822b8 100644 --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/rx.c @@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ static void xenvif_rx_extra_slot(struct xenvif_queue *queue, BUG(); } -void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenvif_queue *queue) +void xenvif_rx_skb(struct xenvif_queue *queue) { struct xenvif_pkt_state pkt; @@ -425,6 +425,19 @@ void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenvif_queue *queue) xenvif_rx_complete(queue, &pkt); } +#define RX_BATCH_SIZE 64 + +void xenvif_rx_action(struct xenvif_queue *queue) +{ + unsigned int work_done = 0; + + while (xenvif_rx_ring_slots_available(queue) && + work_done < RX_BATCH_SIZE) { + xenvif_rx_skb(queue); + work_done++; + } +} + static bool xenvif_rx_queue_stalled(struct xenvif_queue *queue) { RING_IDX prod, cons;