search for: jiangkidd

...e to provide free buffer in avail ring timely. Smaller value of num_free does decrease the number of packet dropping during our test as it makes virtio_net reclaim buffer earlier. At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. Signed-off-by: jiangkidd <jiangkidd at hotmail.com> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c index 0d4115c9e20b..bc190dec6084 100644 --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c @@ -26,...

...e to provide free buffer in avail ring timely. Smaller value of num_free does decrease the number of packet dropping during our test as it makes virtio_net reclaim buffer earlier. At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. Signed-off-by: jiangkidd <jiangkidd at hotmail.com> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 8 +++++++- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c index 0d4115c9e20b..bc190dec6084 100644 --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c @@ -26,...

...er value of num_free does decrease the number of packet dropping >> during our test as it makes virtio_net reclaim buffer earlier. >> >> At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the >> default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. >> >> Signed-off-by: jiangkidd<jiangkidd at hotmail.com> > That would be one reason, but I suspect it's not the > true one. If you need more buffer due to jitter > then just increase the queue size. Would be cleaner. > > > However are you sure this is the reason for > packet drops? Do you see them...

...er value of num_free does decrease the number of packet dropping >> during our test as it makes virtio_net reclaim buffer earlier. >> >> At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the >> default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. >> >> Signed-off-by: jiangkidd<jiangkidd at hotmail.com> > That would be one reason, but I suspect it's not the > true one. If you need more buffer due to jitter > then just increase the queue size. Would be cleaner. > > > However are you sure this is the reason for > packet drops? Do you see them...

...; > > > during our test as it makes virtio_net reclaim buffer earlier. > > > > > > > > At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the > > > > default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: jiangkidd<jiangkidd at hotmail.com> > > > That would be one reason, but I suspect it's not the > > > true one. If you need more buffer due to jitter > > > then just increase the queue size. Would be cleaner. > > > > > > > > > However are you s...

...; > > > during our test as it makes virtio_net reclaim buffer earlier. > > > > > > > > At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the > > > > default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: jiangkidd<jiangkidd at hotmail.com> > > > That would be one reason, but I suspect it's not the > > > true one. If you need more buffer due to jitter > > > then just increase the queue size. Would be cleaner. > > > > > > > > > However are you s...

...ing timely. > Smaller value of num_free does decrease the number of packet dropping > during our test as it makes virtio_net reclaim buffer earlier. > > At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the > default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. > > Signed-off-by: jiangkidd <jiangkidd at hotmail.com> That would be one reason, but I suspect it's not the true one. If you need more buffer due to jitter then just increase the queue size. Would be cleaner. However are you sure this is the reason for packet drops? Do you see them dropped by dpdk due to lack of...

...number of packet dropping > > > during our test as it makes virtio_net reclaim buffer earlier. > > > > > > At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the > > > default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: jiangkidd<jiangkidd at hotmail.com> > > That would be one reason, but I suspect it's not the > > true one. If you need more buffer due to jitter > > then just increase the queue size. Would be cleaner. > > > > > > However are you sure this is the reason for &gt...

...ld from 1/2*queue to budget for better performance. According to our test with qemu + dpdk, packet dropping happens when the guest is not able to provide free buffer in avail ring timely with default 1/2*queue. The value in the patch has been tested and does show better performance. Signed-off-by: jiangkidd <jiangkidd at hotmail.com> --- drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c index 0d4115c9e20b..bc08be7925eb 100644 --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c @@ -1331,7 +13...

...f > work done by try_fill_recv is not bounded by the budget parameter, thus > (with large queues) once in a while userspace gets blocked for a long > time while queue is being refilled. Trigger refills earlier to make sure > the amount of work to do is limited. > > Signed-off-by: jiangkidd <jiangkidd at hotmail.com> > Acked-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> > Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> Dave, could you merge this please? Either net or net-next at your discretion. > --- > drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed...

...;>>> during our test as it makes virtio_net reclaim buffer earlier. >>>>> >>>>> At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the >>>>> default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: jiangkidd<jiangkidd at hotmail.com> >>>> That would be one reason, but I suspect it's not the >>>> true one. If you need more buffer due to jitter >>>> then just increase the queue size. Would be cleaner. >>>> >>>> >>>> However...

...;>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the >>>>>>>>> default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: jiangkidd<jiangkidd at hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> That would be one reason, but I suspect it's not the >>>>>>>> true one. If you need more buffer due to jitter >>>>>>>> then just increase the queue size. Would be cleaner. >>&g...

...;>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the >>>>>>>>> default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: jiangkidd<jiangkidd at hotmail.com> >>>>>>>> That would be one reason, but I suspect it's not the >>>>>>>> true one. If you need more buffer due to jitter >>>>>>>> then just increase the queue size. Would be cleaner. >>&g...

...s virtio_net reclaim buffer earlier. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the >>>>>>> default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: jiangkidd<jiangkidd at hotmail.com> >>>>>> That would be one reason, but I suspect it's not the >>>>>> true one. If you need more buffer due to jitter >>>>>> then just increase the queue size. Would be cleaner. >>>>>> >>&...

...er earlier. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the > >>>>>>> default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: jiangkidd<jiangkidd at hotmail.com> > >>>>>> That would be one reason, but I suspect it's not the > >>>>>> true one. If you need more buffer due to jitter > >>>>>> then just increase the queue size. Would be cleaner. > >>>&g...

...;>>> > >>>>>>>>> At least, we should leave the value changeable to user while the > >>>>>>>>> default value as 1/2 * queue is kept. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: jiangkidd<jiangkidd at hotmail.com> > >>>>>>>> That would be one reason, but I suspect it's not the > >>>>>>>> true one. If you need more buffer due to jitter > >>>>>>>> then just increase the queue size. Would be clea...