Varka Bhadram
2014-Jul-16 08:38 UTC
[PATCH net-next V2 3/3] virtio-net: rx busy polling support
On 07/16/2014 11:51 AM, Jason Wang wrote:> Add basic support for rx busy polling. > > Test was done between a kvm guest and an external host. Two hosts were > connected through 40gb mlx4 cards. With both busy_poll and busy_read > are set to 50 in guest, 1 byte netperf tcp_rr shows 116% improvement: > transaction rate was increased from 9151.94 to 19787.37. > > Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> > Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> > Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic at redhat.com> > Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet at gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> > --- > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 190 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 187 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > index e417d93..4830713 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ > #include <linux/slab.h> > #include <linux/cpu.h> > #include <linux/average.h> > +#include <net/busy_poll.h> > > static int napi_weight = NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT; > module_param(napi_weight, int, 0444); > @@ -94,8 +95,143 @@ struct receive_queue { > > /* Name of this receive queue: input.$index */ > char name[40]; > + > +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL > + unsigned int state; > +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_IDLE 0 > +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI 1 /* NAPI or refill owns this RQ */ > +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL 2 /* poll owns this RQ */ > +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_DISABLED 4 /* RQ is disabled */ > +#define VIRTNET_RQ_OWNED (VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI | VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL) > +#define VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED (VIRTNET_RQ_OWNED | VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_DISABLED) > +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD 8 /* NAPI or refill yielded this RQ */ > +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL_YIELD 16 /* poll yielded this RQ */ > + spinlock_t lock; > +#endif /* CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL */ > }; > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL > +static inline void virtnet_rq_init_lock(struct receive_queue *rq) > +{ > + > + spin_lock_init(&rq->lock); > + rq->state = VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_IDLE; > +} > + > +/* called from the device poll routine or refill routine to get ownership of a > + * receive queue. > + */ > +static inline bool virtnet_rq_lock_napi_refill(struct receive_queue *rq) > +{ > + int rc = true; > +bool instead of int...?> + spin_lock(&rq->lock); > + if (rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED) { > + WARN_ON(rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI); > + rq->state |= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD; > + rc = false; > + } else > + /* we don't care if someone yielded */ > + rq->state = VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI; > + spin_unlock(&rq->lock);Lock for rq->state ...? If yes: spin_lock(&rq->lock); if (rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED) { rq->state |= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD; spin_unlock(&rq->lock); WARN_ON(rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI); rc = false; } else { /* we don't care if someone yielded */ rq->state = VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI; spin_unlock(&rq->lock); }> + return rc; > +} > + > +/* returns true is someone tried to get the rq while napi or refill had it */ > +static inline bool virtnet_rq_unlock_napi_refill(struct receive_queue *rq) > +{ > + int rc = false; > + > + spin_lock(&rq->lock); > + WARN_ON(rq->state & (VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL | > + VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD)); > + > + if (rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL_YIELD) > + rc = true; > + /* will reset state to idle, unless RQ is disabled */ > + rq->state &= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_DISABLED; > + spin_unlock(&rq->lock); > + return rc; > +} > + > +/* called from virtnet_low_latency_recv() */ > +static inline bool virtnet_rq_lock_poll(struct receive_queue *rq) > +{ > + int rc = true; > + > + spin_lock_bh(&rq->lock); > + if ((rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED)) { > + rq->state |= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL_YIELD; > + rc = false; > + } else > + /* preserve yield marks */ > + rq->state |= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL; > + spin_unlock_bh(&rq->lock); > + return rc; > +} > + > +/* returns true if someone tried to get the receive queue while it was locked */ > +static inline bool virtnet_rq_unlock_poll(struct receive_queue *rq) > +{ > + int rc = false; > + > + spin_lock_bh(&rq->lock); > + WARN_ON(rq->state & (VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI)); > + > + if (rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL_YIELD) > + rc = true; > + /* will reset state to idle, unless RQ is disabled */ > + rq->state &= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_DISABLED; > + spin_unlock_bh(&rq->lock); > + return rc; > +} > + > +/* return false if RQ is currently owned */ > +static inline bool virtnet_rq_disable(struct receive_queue *rq) > +{ > + int rc = true; > + > + spin_lock_bh(&rq->lock); > + if (rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_OWNED) > + rc = false; > + rq->state |= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_DISABLED; > + spin_unlock_bh(&rq->lock); > + > + return rc; > +} > + > +#else /* CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL */ > +static inline void virtnet_rq_init_lock(struct receive_queue *rq) > +{ > +} > + > +static inline bool virtnet_rq_lock_napi_refill(struct receive_queue *rq) > +{ > + return true; > +} > + > +static inline bool virtnet_rq_unlock_napi_refill(struct receive_queue *rq) > +{ > + return false; > +} > + > +static inline bool virtnet_rq_lock_poll(struct receive_queue *rq) > +{ > + return false; > +} > + > +static inline bool virtnet_rq_unlock_poll(struct receive_queue *rq) > +{ > + return false; > +} > + > +static inline bool virtnet_rq_disable(struct receive_queue *rq) > +{ > + return true; > +} > + > +#endif /* CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL */ > + > struct virtnet_info { > struct virtio_device *vdev; > struct virtqueue *cvq; > @@ -521,6 +657,8 @@ static void receive_buf(struct receive_queue *rq, void *buf, unsigned int len) > skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_segs = 0; > } > > + skb_mark_napi_id(skb, &rq->napi); > + > netif_receive_skb(skb); > return; > > @@ -714,7 +852,12 @@ static void refill_work(struct work_struct *work) > struct receive_queue *rq = &vi->rq[i]; > > napi_disable(&rq->napi); > + if (!virtnet_rq_lock_napi_refill(rq)) { > + virtnet_napi_enable(rq); > + continue; > + } > still_empty = !try_fill_recv(rq, GFP_KERNEL); > + virtnet_rq_unlock_napi_refill(rq); > virtnet_napi_enable(rq); > > /* In theory, this can happen: if we don't get any buffers in > @@ -752,8 +895,13 @@ static int virtnet_poll(struct napi_struct *napi, int budget) > unsigned int r, received = 0; > > again: > + if (!virtnet_rq_lock_napi_refill(rq)) > + return budget; > + > received += virtnet_receive(rq, budget); > > + virtnet_rq_unlock_napi_refill(rq); > + > /* Out of packets? */ > if (received < budget) { > r = virtqueue_enable_cb_prepare(rq->vq); > @@ -770,20 +918,50 @@ again: > return received; > } > > +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL > +/* must be called with local_bh_disable()d */ > +static int virtnet_low_latency_recv(struct napi_struct *napi) > +{ > + struct receive_queue *rq > + container_of(napi, struct receive_queue, napi); > + struct virtnet_info *vi = rq->vq->vdev->priv; > + int received; > + > + if (!(vi->status & VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP)) > + return LL_FLUSH_FAILED; > + > + if (!virtnet_rq_lock_poll(rq)) > + return LL_FLUSH_BUSY; > + > + received = virtnet_receive(rq, 4); > + > + virtnet_rq_unlock_poll(rq); > + > + return received; > +} > +#endif /* CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL */ > + > static void virtnet_napi_enable_all(struct virtnet_info *vi) > { > int i; > > - for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) > + for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) { > + virtnet_rq_init_lock(&vi->rq[i]); > virtnet_napi_enable(&vi->rq[i]); > + } > } > > static void virtnet_napi_disable_all(struct virtnet_info *vi) > { > int i; > > - for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) > + for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) { > napi_disable(&vi->rq[i].napi); > + while (!virtnet_rq_disable(&vi->rq[i])) { > + pr_info("RQ %d locked\n", i); > + usleep_range(1000, 20000); > + } > + } > } > > static int virtnet_open(struct net_device *dev) > @@ -1372,6 +1550,9 @@ static const struct net_device_ops virtnet_netdev = { > #ifdef CONFIG_NET_POLL_CONTROLLER > .ndo_poll_controller = virtnet_netpoll, > #endif > +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL > + .ndo_busy_poll = virtnet_low_latency_recv, > +#endif > }; > > static void virtnet_config_changed_work(struct work_struct *work) > @@ -1577,6 +1758,7 @@ static int virtnet_alloc_queues(struct virtnet_info *vi) > vi->rq[i].pages = NULL; > netif_napi_add(vi->dev, &vi->rq[i].napi, virtnet_poll, > napi_weight); > + napi_hash_add(&vi->rq[i].napi); > > sg_init_table(vi->rq[i].sg, ARRAY_SIZE(vi->rq[i].sg)); > ewma_init(&vi->rq[i].mrg_avg_pkt_len, 1, RECEIVE_AVG_WEIGHT); > @@ -1880,8 +2062,10 @@ static int virtnet_freeze(struct virtio_device *vdev) > > if (netif_running(vi->dev)) { > virtnet_napi_disable_all(vi); > - for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) > + for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) { > + napi_hash_del(&vi->rq[i].napi); > netif_napi_del(&vi->rq[i].napi); > + } > } > > remove_vq_common(vi);-- Regards, Varka Bhadram.
Jason Wang
2014-Jul-17 02:55 UTC
[PATCH net-next V2 3/3] virtio-net: rx busy polling support
On 07/16/2014 04:38 PM, Varka Bhadram wrote:> On 07/16/2014 11:51 AM, Jason Wang wrote: >> Add basic support for rx busy polling. >> >> Test was done between a kvm guest and an external host. Two hosts were >> connected through 40gb mlx4 cards. With both busy_poll and busy_read >> are set to 50 in guest, 1 byte netperf tcp_rr shows 116% improvement: >> transaction rate was increased from 9151.94 to 19787.37. >> >> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> >> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> >> Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic at redhat.com> >> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet at gmail.com> >> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> >> --- >> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 190 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 187 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c >> index e417d93..4830713 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c >> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ >> #include <linux/slab.h> >> #include <linux/cpu.h> >> #include <linux/average.h> >> +#include <net/busy_poll.h> >> static int napi_weight = NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT; >> module_param(napi_weight, int, 0444); >> @@ -94,8 +95,143 @@ struct receive_queue { >> /* Name of this receive queue: input.$index */ >> char name[40]; >> + >> +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL >> + unsigned int state; >> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_IDLE 0 >> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI 1 /* NAPI or refill owns >> this RQ */ >> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL 2 /* poll owns this RQ */ >> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_DISABLED 4 /* RQ is disabled */ >> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_OWNED (VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI | >> VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL) >> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED (VIRTNET_RQ_OWNED | >> VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_DISABLED) >> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD 8 /* NAPI or refill yielded >> this RQ */ >> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL_YIELD 16 /* poll yielded this RQ */ >> + spinlock_t lock; >> +#endif /* CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL */ >> }; >> +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL >> +static inline void virtnet_rq_init_lock(struct receive_queue *rq) >> +{ >> + >> + spin_lock_init(&rq->lock); >> + rq->state = VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_IDLE; >> +} >> + >> +/* called from the device poll routine or refill routine to get >> ownership of a >> + * receive queue. >> + */ >> +static inline bool virtnet_rq_lock_napi_refill(struct receive_queue >> *rq) >> +{ >> + int rc = true; >> + > > bool instead of int...?Yes, it was better.> >> + spin_lock(&rq->lock); >> + if (rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED) { >> + WARN_ON(rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI); >> + rq->state |= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD; >> + rc = false; >> + } else >> + /* we don't care if someone yielded */ >> + rq->state = VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI; >> + spin_unlock(&rq->lock); > > Lock for rq->state ...? > > If yes: > spin_lock(&rq->lock); > if (rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED) { > rq->state |= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD; > spin_unlock(&rq->lock); > WARN_ON(rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI); > rc = false; > } else { > /* we don't care if someone yielded */ > rq->state = VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI; > spin_unlock(&rq->lock); > }I didn't see any differences. Is this used to catch the bug of driver earlier? btw, several other rx busy polling capable driver does the same thing.
Varka Bhadram
2014-Jul-17 03:27 UTC
[PATCH net-next V2 3/3] virtio-net: rx busy polling support
On Thursday 17 July 2014 08:25 AM, Jason Wang wrote:> On 07/16/2014 04:38 PM, Varka Bhadram wrote: >> On 07/16/2014 11:51 AM, Jason Wang wrote: >>> Add basic support for rx busy polling. >>> >>> Test was done between a kvm guest and an external host. Two hosts were >>> connected through 40gb mlx4 cards. With both busy_poll and busy_read >>> are set to 50 in guest, 1 byte netperf tcp_rr shows 116% improvement: >>> transaction rate was increased from 9151.94 to 19787.37. >>> >>> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> >>> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> >>> Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevic at redhat.com> >>> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet at gmail.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 190 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >>> 1 file changed, 187 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c >>> index e417d93..4830713 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c >>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c >>> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ >>> #include <linux/slab.h> >>> #include <linux/cpu.h> >>> #include <linux/average.h> >>> +#include <net/busy_poll.h> >>> static int napi_weight = NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT; >>> module_param(napi_weight, int, 0444); >>> @@ -94,8 +95,143 @@ struct receive_queue { >>> /* Name of this receive queue: input.$index */ >>> char name[40]; >>> + >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL >>> + unsigned int state; >>> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_IDLE 0 >>> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI 1 /* NAPI or refill owns >>> this RQ */ >>> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL 2 /* poll owns this RQ */ >>> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_DISABLED 4 /* RQ is disabled */ >>> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_OWNED (VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI | >>> VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL) >>> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED (VIRTNET_RQ_OWNED | >>> VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_DISABLED) >>> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD 8 /* NAPI or refill yielded >>> this RQ */ >>> +#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL_YIELD 16 /* poll yielded this RQ */ >>> + spinlock_t lock; >>> +#endif /* CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL */ >>> }; >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL >>> +static inline void virtnet_rq_init_lock(struct receive_queue *rq) >>> +{ >>> + >>> + spin_lock_init(&rq->lock); >>> + rq->state = VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_IDLE; >>> +} >>> + >>> +/* called from the device poll routine or refill routine to get >>> ownership of a >>> + * receive queue. >>> + */ >>> +static inline bool virtnet_rq_lock_napi_refill(struct receive_queue >>> *rq) >>> +{ >>> + int rc = true; >>> + >> bool instead of int...? > Yes, it was better. >>> + spin_lock(&rq->lock); >>> + if (rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED) { >>> + WARN_ON(rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI); >>> + rq->state |= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD; >>> + rc = false; >>> + } else >>> + /* we don't care if someone yielded */ >>> + rq->state = VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI; >>> + spin_unlock(&rq->lock); >> Lock for rq->state ...? >> >> If yes: >> spin_lock(&rq->lock); >> if (rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED) { >> rq->state |= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD; >> spin_unlock(&rq->lock); >> WARN_ON(rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI); >> rc = false; >> } else { >> /* we don't care if someone yielded */ >> rq->state = VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI; >> spin_unlock(&rq->lock); >> } > I didn't see any differences. Is this used to catch the bug of driver > earlier? btw, several other rx busy polling capable driver does the same > thing.We need not to include WARN_ON() & rc=false under critical section. -- Regards, Varka Bhadram
Reasonably Related Threads
- [PATCH net-next V2 3/3] virtio-net: rx busy polling support
- [PATCH net-next V2 3/3] virtio-net: rx busy polling support
- [PATCH net-next V2 3/3] virtio-net: rx busy polling support
- [PATCH net-next V2 0/3] rx busy polling support for virtio-net
- [PATCH net-next V2 0/3] rx busy polling support for virtio-net