Rusty Russell
2015-Feb-13 02:52 UTC
[PATCH RFC v5 net-next 4/6] virtio-net: add basic interrupt coalescing support
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes:> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:02:37PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: >> Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> writes: >> > This patch enables the interrupt coalescing setting through ethtool. >> >> The problem is that there's nothing network specific about interrupt >> coalescing. I can see other devices wanting exactly the same thing, >> which means we'd deprecate this in the next virtio standard. >> >> I think the right answer is to extend like we did with >> vring_used_event(), eg: >> >> 1) Add a new feature VIRTIO_F_RING_COALESCE. >> 2) Add another a 32-bit field after vring_used_event(), eg: >> #define vring_used_delay(vr) (*(u32 *)((vr)->avail->ring[(vr)->num + 2])) >> >> This loses the ability to coalesce by number of frames, but we can still >> do number of sg entries, as we do now with used_event, and we could >> change virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed() to take a precise number if we >> wanted. > > But do we expect delay to be update dynamically? > If not, why not stick it in config space?Hmm, we could update it dynamically (and will, in the case of ethtool). But it won't be common, so we could append a field to virtio_pci_common_cfg for PCI. I think MMIO and CCW would be easy to extend too, but CC'd to check.>> My feeling is that this should be a v1.0-only feature though >> (eg. feature bit 33). > > Yes, e.g. we can't extend config space for legacy virtio pci.Thanks, Rusty.
Pawel Moll
2015-Feb-13 12:41 UTC
[PATCH RFC v5 net-next 4/6] virtio-net: add basic interrupt coalescing support
On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 02:52 +0000, Rusty Russell wrote:> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:02:37PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> writes: > >> > This patch enables the interrupt coalescing setting through ethtool. > >> > >> The problem is that there's nothing network specific about interrupt > >> coalescing. I can see other devices wanting exactly the same thing, > >> which means we'd deprecate this in the next virtio standard. > >> > >> I think the right answer is to extend like we did with > >> vring_used_event(), eg: > >> > >> 1) Add a new feature VIRTIO_F_RING_COALESCE. > >> 2) Add another a 32-bit field after vring_used_event(), eg: > >> #define vring_used_delay(vr) (*(u32 *)((vr)->avail->ring[(vr)->num + 2])) > >> > >> This loses the ability to coalesce by number of frames, but we can still > >> do number of sg entries, as we do now with used_event, and we could > >> change virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed() to take a precise number if we > >> wanted. > > > > But do we expect delay to be update dynamically? > > If not, why not stick it in config space? > > Hmm, we could update it dynamically (and will, in the case of ethtool). > But it won't be common, so we could append a field to > virtio_pci_common_cfg for PCI. > > I think MMIO and CCW would be easy to extend too, but CC'd to check.As far as I understand the virtio_pci_common_cfg principle (just had a look, for the first time ;-), it's now an equivalent of the MMIO control registers block. I see no major problem with adding another one. Or were you thinking about introducing some standard for the "real" config space? (fine with me as well - the transport will have nothing to do :-) Pawe?
Cornelia Huck
2015-Feb-13 18:19 UTC
[PATCH RFC v5 net-next 4/6] virtio-net: add basic interrupt coalescing support
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:22:09 +1030 Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote:> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:02:37PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > >> Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> writes: > >> > This patch enables the interrupt coalescing setting through ethtool. > >> > >> The problem is that there's nothing network specific about interrupt > >> coalescing. I can see other devices wanting exactly the same thing, > >> which means we'd deprecate this in the next virtio standard. > >> > >> I think the right answer is to extend like we did with > >> vring_used_event(), eg: > >> > >> 1) Add a new feature VIRTIO_F_RING_COALESCE. > >> 2) Add another a 32-bit field after vring_used_event(), eg: > >> #define vring_used_delay(vr) (*(u32 *)((vr)->avail->ring[(vr)->num + 2])) > >> > >> This loses the ability to coalesce by number of frames, but we can still > >> do number of sg entries, as we do now with used_event, and we could > >> change virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed() to take a precise number if we > >> wanted. > > > > But do we expect delay to be update dynamically? > > If not, why not stick it in config space? > > Hmm, we could update it dynamically (and will, in the case of ethtool). > But it won't be common, so we could append a field to > virtio_pci_common_cfg for PCI. > > I think MMIO and CCW would be easy to extend too, but CC'd to check.If this is a simple extension of the config space, it should just work for ccw (the Linux guest driver currently uses 0x100 as max config space size, which I grabbed from pci at the time I wrote it). But looking at this virtio_pci_common_cfg stuff, it seems to contain a lot of things that are handled via ccws on virtio-ccw (like number of queues or device status). Having an extra ccw just for changing this delay value seems like overkill. On the basic topic of interrupt coalescing: With adapter interrupts, virtio-ccw already has some kind of coalescing: The summary indicator is set just once and an interrupt is made pending, then individual queue indicators are switched on and no further interrupt is generated if the summary indicator has not been cleared by the guest yet. I'm not sure how it would be different if an individual queue indicator is switched on later. Chances are that the guest code processing the indicators has not even yet processed to that individual indicator, so it wouldn't matter if it was set delayed. It is probably something that has to be tried out.
Rusty Russell
2015-Feb-16 03:07 UTC
[PATCH RFC v5 net-next 4/6] virtio-net: add basic interrupt coalescing support
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll at arm.com> writes:> On Fri, 2015-02-13 at 02:52 +0000, Rusty Russell wrote: >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: >> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:02:37PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: >> >> Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> writes: >> >> > This patch enables the interrupt coalescing setting through ethtool. >> >> >> >> The problem is that there's nothing network specific about interrupt >> >> coalescing. I can see other devices wanting exactly the same thing, >> >> which means we'd deprecate this in the next virtio standard. >> >> >> >> I think the right answer is to extend like we did with >> >> vring_used_event(), eg: >> >> >> >> 1) Add a new feature VIRTIO_F_RING_COALESCE. >> >> 2) Add another a 32-bit field after vring_used_event(), eg: >> >> #define vring_used_delay(vr) (*(u32 *)((vr)->avail->ring[(vr)->num + 2])) >> >> >> >> This loses the ability to coalesce by number of frames, but we can still >> >> do number of sg entries, as we do now with used_event, and we could >> >> change virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed() to take a precise number if we >> >> wanted. >> > >> > But do we expect delay to be update dynamically? >> > If not, why not stick it in config space? >> >> Hmm, we could update it dynamically (and will, in the case of ethtool). >> But it won't be common, so we could append a field to >> virtio_pci_common_cfg for PCI. >> >> I think MMIO and CCW would be easy to extend too, but CC'd to check. > > As far as I understand the virtio_pci_common_cfg principle (just had a > look, for the first time ;-), it's now an equivalent of the MMIO control > registers block. I see no major problem with adding another one.OK, thanks.> Or were you thinking about introducing some standard for the "real" > config space? (fine with me as well - the transport will have nothing to > do :-)No, that'd not be possible at this point. I think it's a per-transport decision. Cheers, Rusty.
Rusty Russell
2015-Feb-16 03:19 UTC
[PATCH RFC v5 net-next 4/6] virtio-net: add basic interrupt coalescing support
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck at de.ibm.com> writes:> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:22:09 +1030 > Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst at redhat.com> writes: >> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:02:37PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: >> >> Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> writes: >> >> > This patch enables the interrupt coalescing setting through ethtool. >> >> >> >> The problem is that there's nothing network specific about interrupt >> >> coalescing. I can see other devices wanting exactly the same thing, >> >> which means we'd deprecate this in the next virtio standard. >> >> >> >> I think the right answer is to extend like we did with >> >> vring_used_event(), eg: >> >> >> >> 1) Add a new feature VIRTIO_F_RING_COALESCE. >> >> 2) Add another a 32-bit field after vring_used_event(), eg: >> >> #define vring_used_delay(vr) (*(u32 *)((vr)->avail->ring[(vr)->num + 2])) >> >> >> >> This loses the ability to coalesce by number of frames, but we can still >> >> do number of sg entries, as we do now with used_event, and we could >> >> change virtqueue_enable_cb_delayed() to take a precise number if we >> >> wanted. >> > >> > But do we expect delay to be update dynamically? >> > If not, why not stick it in config space? >> >> Hmm, we could update it dynamically (and will, in the case of ethtool). >> But it won't be common, so we could append a field to >> virtio_pci_common_cfg for PCI. >> >> I think MMIO and CCW would be easy to extend too, but CC'd to check. > > If this is a simple extension of the config space, it should just work > for ccw (the Linux guest driver currently uses 0x100 as max config > space size, which I grabbed from pci at the time I wrote it). > > But looking at this virtio_pci_common_cfg stuff, it seems to contain a > lot of things that are handled via ccws on virtio-ccw (like number of > queues or device status). Having an extra ccw just for changing this > delay value seems like overkill.Yes, possibly.> On the basic topic of interrupt coalescing: With adapter interrupts, > virtio-ccw already has some kind of coalescing: The summary indicator > is set just once and an interrupt is made pending, then individual > queue indicators are switched on and no further interrupt is generated > if the summary indicator has not been cleared by the guest yet. I'm not > sure how it would be different if an individual queue indicator is > switched on later. Chances are that the guest code processing the > indicators has not even yet processed to that individual indicator, so > it wouldn't matter if it was set delayed. It is probably something that > has to be tried out.The network driver will do this at the virtio level too: no more rx interrupts will be received until all packets have been processed. But it is particularly useful for network transmit interrupts: we want to be notified of the packet's finishing, but a little delay (hence more batching) is better. For rx, I can envision a case where the guest is too fast and thus keeps getting interrupted after each packet. A user might decide to trade off some latency to increase batching; seems like a bit like a benchmark hack to me, though... Cheers, Rusty.
Maybe Matching Threads
- [PATCH RFC v5 net-next 4/6] virtio-net: add basic interrupt coalescing support
- [PATCH RFC v5 net-next 4/6] virtio-net: add basic interrupt coalescing support
- [PATCH RFC v5 net-next 4/6] virtio-net: add basic interrupt coalescing support
- [PATCH RFC v5 net-next 4/6] virtio-net: add basic interrupt coalescing support
- [PATCH RFC v5 net-next 4/6] virtio-net: add basic interrupt coalescing support