Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-Sep-07 19:23 UTC
[PATCH v5 2/2] virtio-net: use mtu size as buffer length for big packets
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 07:18:06PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:> > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 3:12 PM > > > > Because of shallow queue of 16 entries deep. > > > > but why is the queue just 16 entries? > I explained the calculation in [1] about 16 entries. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/PH0PR12MB54812EC7F4711C1EA4CAA119DC419 at PH0PR12MB5481.namprd12.prod.outlook.com/ > > > does the device not support indirect? > > > Yes, indirect feature bit is disabled on the device.OK that explains it.> > because with indirect you get 256 entries, with 16 s/g each. > > > Sure. I explained below that indirect comes with 7x memory cost that is not desired. > (Ignored the table memory allocation cost and extra latency).Oh sure, it's a waste. I wonder what effect does the patch have on bandwidth with indirect enabled though.> Hence don't want to enable indirect in this scenario. > This optimization also works with indirect with smaller indirect table. > > > > > > With driver turn around time to repost buffers, device is idle without any > > RQ buffers. > > > With this improvement, device has 85 buffers instead of 16 to receive > > packets. > > > > > > Enabling indirect in device can help at cost of 7x higher memory per VQ in > > the guest VM.
Parav Pandit
2022-Sep-07 19:27 UTC
[PATCH v5 2/2] virtio-net: use mtu size as buffer length for big packets
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> > Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 3:24 PM > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 07:18:06PM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote: > > > > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 3:12 PM > > > > > > Because of shallow queue of 16 entries deep. > > > > > > but why is the queue just 16 entries? > > I explained the calculation in [1] about 16 entries. > > > > [1] > > > https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/PH0PR12MB54812EC7F4711C1EA4CAA119DC > 419@ > > PH0PR12MB5481.namprd12.prod.outlook.com/ > > > > > does the device not support indirect? > > > > > Yes, indirect feature bit is disabled on the device. > > OK that explains it.So can we proceed with v6 to contain (a) updated commit message and (b) function name change you suggested to drop _fields suffix?