Displaying 10 results from an estimated 10 matches for "min_numfree".
2019 Jul 18
2
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...), 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
@@ -26,6 +26,9 @@
static int napi_weight = NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT;
module_param(napi_weight, int, 0444);
+static int min_numfree;
+module_param(min_numfree, int, 0444);
+
static bool csum = true, gso = true, napi_tx;
module_param(csum, bool, 0444);
module_param(gso, bool, 0444);
@@ -1315,6 +1318,9 @@ static int virtnet_receive(struct receive_queue *rq, int budget,
void *buf;
int i;
+ if (!min_numfree)
+ min_numfree...
2019 Jul 18
2
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...), 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
@@ -26,6 +26,9 @@
static int napi_weight = NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT;
module_param(napi_weight, int, 0444);
+static int min_numfree;
+module_param(min_numfree, int, 0444);
+
static bool csum = true, gso = true, napi_tx;
module_param(csum, bool, 0444);
module_param(gso, bool, 0444);
@@ -1315,6 +1318,9 @@ static int virtnet_receive(struct receive_queue *rq, int budget,
void *buf;
int i;
+ if (!min_numfree)
+ min_numfree...
2019 Jul 18
0
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...et/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
> @@ -26,6 +26,9 @@
> static int napi_weight = NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT;
> module_param(napi_weight, int, 0444);
>
> +static int min_numfree;
> +module_param(min_numfree, int, 0444);
> +
> static bool csum = true, gso = true, napi_tx;
> module_param(csum, bool, 0444);
> module_param(gso, bool, 0444);
> @@ -1315,6 +1318,9 @@ static int virtnet_receive(struct receive_queue *rq, int budget,
> void *buf;
> int...
2019 Jul 23
2
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...onment. Do you
>>> still think hardcoding this is better option?
>>>
>>>
>>> Jiang
>>>
>> Here is the snippet from our test result. Test1 was done with default
>> driver with the value of 1/2 * queue, while test2 is with my patch and
>> min_numfree set to 64 (the default budget value). We can see average
>> drop packets do decrease a lot in test2. Let me know if you need the
>> full testing data.
>>
>> test1Time??? avgDropPackets??? test2Time??? avgDropPackets??? pps
>>
>>> 16:21.0??? 12.295??? 56:50.4??...
2019 Jul 23
2
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...onment. Do you
>>> still think hardcoding this is better option?
>>>
>>>
>>> Jiang
>>>
>> Here is the snippet from our test result. Test1 was done with default
>> driver with the value of 1/2 * queue, while test2 is with my patch and
>> min_numfree set to 64 (the default budget value). We can see average
>> drop packets do decrease a lot in test2. Let me know if you need the
>> full testing data.
>>
>> test1Time??? avgDropPackets??? test2Time??? avgDropPackets??? pps
>>
>>> 16:21.0??? 12.295??? 56:50.4??...
2019 Jul 19
1
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...re
> doing. Also, the best value may vary in different environment. Do you
> still think hardcoding this is better option?
>
>
> Jiang
>
Here is the snippet from our test result. Test1 was done with default
driver with the value of 1/2 * queue, while test2 is with my patch and
min_numfree set to 64 (the default budget value). We can see average
drop packets do decrease a lot in test2. Let me know if you need the
full testing data.
test1Time??? avgDropPackets??? test2Time??? avgDropPackets??? pps
> 16:21.0??? 12.295??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k
> 17:19.1??? 15.244??? 56:50.4???...
2019 Jul 19
0
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...vary in different environment. Do you
> > still think hardcoding this is better option?
> >
> >
> > Jiang
> >
> Here is the snippet from our test result. Test1 was done with default
> driver with the value of 1/2 * queue, while test2 is with my patch and
> min_numfree set to 64 (the default budget value). We can see average
> drop packets do decrease a lot in test2. Let me know if you need the
> full testing data.
>
> test1Time??? avgDropPackets??? test2Time??? avgDropPackets??? pps
>
> > 16:21.0??? 12.295??? 56:50.4??? 0??? 300k
> &g...
2019 Aug 13
0
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
...hink hardcoding this is better option?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jiang
> >>>
> >> Here is the snippet from our test result. Test1 was done with default
> >> driver with the value of 1/2 * queue, while test2 is with my patch and
> >> min_numfree set to 64 (the default budget value). We can see average
> >> drop packets do decrease a lot in test2. Let me know if you need the
> >> full testing data.
> >>
> >> test1Time??? avgDropPackets??? test2Time??? avgDropPackets??? pps
> >>
> >>>...
2019 Jul 18
4
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42:47AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:01:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >
> > On 2019/7/18 ??9:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:55:50PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
> > > > This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold num_free configurable
> > > > for better
2019 Jul 18
4
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42:47AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:01:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >
> > On 2019/7/18 ??9:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:55:50PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
> > > > This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold num_free configurable
> > > > for better