search for: process_queue

...edhat.com> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:09:31 +0800 > + spin_lock(&queue->lock); > + qlen = skb_queue_len(queue); > + if (qlen > rx_batched) > + goto drop; > + __skb_queue_tail(queue, skb); > + if (!more || qlen + 1 > rx_batched) { > + __skb_queue_head_init(&process_queue); > + skb_queue_splice_tail_init(queue, &process_queue); > + rcv = true; > + } > + spin_unlock(&queue->lock); Since you always clear the 'queue' when you insert the skb that hits the limit, I don't see how the "goto drop" path can be possibly taken.

...edhat.com> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2016 16:09:31 +0800 > + spin_lock(&queue->lock); > + qlen = skb_queue_len(queue); > + if (qlen > rx_batched) > + goto drop; > + __skb_queue_tail(queue, skb); > + if (!more || qlen + 1 > rx_batched) { > + __skb_queue_head_init(&process_queue); > + skb_queue_splice_tail_init(queue, &process_queue); > + rcv = true; > + } > + spin_unlock(&queue->lock); Since you always clear the 'queue' when you insert the skb that hits the limit, I don't see how the "goto drop" path can be possibly taken.

...or_queue); } @@ -1140,10 +1145,36 @@ static struct sk_buff *tun_alloc_skb(struct tun_file *tfile, return skb; } +static void tun_rx_batched(struct tun_file *tfile, struct sk_buff *skb, + int more) +{ + struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue; + struct sk_buff_head process_queue; + int qlen; + bool rcv = false; + + spin_lock(&queue->lock); + qlen = skb_queue_len(queue); + __skb_queue_tail(queue, skb); + if (!more || qlen == rx_batched) { + __skb_queue_head_init(&process_queue); + skb_queue_splice_tail_init(queue, &process_queue); + rcv = true; + } + spin_...

Hi: This series tries to implement tx batching support for vhost. This was done by using MSG_MORE as a hint for under layer socket. The backend (e.g tap) can then batch the packets temporarily in a list and submit it all once the number of bacthed exceeds a limitation. Tests shows obvious improvement on guest pktgen over over mlx4(noqueue) on host: Mpps -+%

Hi: This series tries to implement tx batching support for vhost. This was done by using MSG_MORE as a hint for under layer socket. The backend (e.g tap) can then batch the packets temporarily in a list and submit it all once the number of bacthed exceeds a limitation. Tests shows obvious improvement on guest pktgen over over mlx4(noqueue) on host: Mpps -+%

...rror_queue); } @@ -1140,10 +1145,44 @@ static struct sk_buff *tun_alloc_skb(struct tun_file *tfile, return skb; } +static int tun_rx_batched(struct tun_file *tfile, struct sk_buff *skb, + int more) +{ + struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue; + struct sk_buff_head process_queue; + int qlen; + bool rcv = false; + + spin_lock(&queue->lock); + qlen = skb_queue_len(queue); + if (qlen > rx_batched) + goto drop; + __skb_queue_tail(queue, skb); + if (!more || qlen + 1 > rx_batched) { + __skb_queue_head_init(&process_queue); + skb_queue_splice_tail_init(queue,...

...,10 +1141,46 @@ static struct sk_buff *tun_alloc_skb(struct tun_file *tfile, return skb; } +static void tun_rx_batched(struct tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file *tfile, + struct sk_buff *skb, int more) +{ + struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue; + struct sk_buff_head process_queue; + u32 rx_batched = tun->rx_batched; + bool rcv = false; + + if (!rx_batched || (!more && skb_queue_empty(queue))) { + local_bh_disable(); + netif_receive_skb(skb); + local_bh_enable(); + return; + } + + spin_lock(&queue->lock); + if (!more || skb_queue_len(queue) == rx_batche...

...,10 +1142,45 @@ static struct sk_buff *tun_alloc_skb(struct tun_file *tfile, return skb; } +static void tun_rx_batched(struct tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file *tfile, + struct sk_buff *skb, int more) +{ + struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue; + struct sk_buff_head process_queue; + u32 rx_batched = tun->rx_batched; + bool rcv = false; + + if (!rx_batched || (!more && skb_queue_empty(queue))) { + local_bh_disable(); + netif_receive_skb(skb); + local_bh_enable(); + return; + } + + spin_lock(&queue->lock); + if (!more || skb_queue_len(queue) == rx_batche...

Hi: This series tries to implement tx batching support for vhost. This was done by using MSG_MORE as a hint for under layer socket. The backend (e.g tap) can then batch the packets temporarily in a list and submit it all once the number of bacthed exceeds a limitation. Tests shows obvious improvement on guest pktgen over over mlx4(noqueue) on host: Mpps -+%

Hi: This series tries to implement tx batching support for vhost. This was done by using MSG_MORE as a hint for under layer socket. The backend (e.g tap) can then batch the packets temporarily in a list and submit it all once the number of bacthed exceeds a limitation. Tests shows obvious improvement on guest pktgen over over mlx4(noqueue) on host: Mpps -+%

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:09:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > +static int tun_rx_batched(struct tun_file *tfile, struct sk_buff *skb, > + int more) > +{ > + struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue; > + struct sk_buff_head process_queue; > + int qlen; > + bool rcv = false; > + > + spin_lock(&queue->lock); Should this be spin_lock_bh()? Below and in tun_get_user() there are explicit local_bh_disable() calls so I guess BHs can interrupt us here and this would deadlock. -------------- next part -------------- A n...

On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:09:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > +static int tun_rx_batched(struct tun_file *tfile, struct sk_buff *skb, > + int more) > +{ > + struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue; > + struct sk_buff_head process_queue; > + int qlen; > + bool rcv = false; > + > + spin_lock(&queue->lock); Should this be spin_lock_bh()? Below and in tun_get_user() there are explicit local_bh_disable() calls so I guess BHs can interrupt us here and this would deadlock. -------------- next part -------------- A n...

Hi: This series tries to implement tx batching support for vhost. This was done by using MSG_MORE as a hint for under layer socket. The backend (e.g tap) can then batch the packets temporarily in a list and submit it all once the number of bacthed exceeds a limitation. Tests shows obvious improvement on guest pktgen over over mlx4(noqueue) on host: Mpps -+%

Hi: This series tries to implement tx batching support for vhost. This was done by using MSG_MORE as a hint for under layer socket. The backend (e.g tap) can then batch the packets temporarily in a list and submit it all once the number of bacthed exceeds a limitation. Tests shows obvious improvement on guest pktgen over over mlx4(noqueue) on host: Mpps -+%

...un_alloc_skb(struct tun_file *tfile, > return skb; > } > > +static void tun_rx_batched(struct tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file *tfile, > + struct sk_buff *skb, int more) > +{ > + struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue; > + struct sk_buff_head process_queue; > + u32 rx_batched = tun->rx_batched; > + bool rcv = false; > + > + if (!rx_batched || (!more && skb_queue_empty(queue))) { > + local_bh_disable(); > + netif_receive_skb(skb); > + local_bh_enable(); > + return; > + } > + > + spin_lock(&queue->...

...un_alloc_skb(struct tun_file *tfile, > return skb; > } > > +static void tun_rx_batched(struct tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file *tfile, > + struct sk_buff *skb, int more) > +{ > + struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue; > + struct sk_buff_head process_queue; > + u32 rx_batched = tun->rx_batched; > + bool rcv = false; > + > + if (!rx_batched || (!more && skb_queue_empty(queue))) { > + local_bh_disable(); > + netif_receive_skb(skb); > + local_bh_enable(); > + return; > + } > + > + spin_lock(&queue->...

...d. My question is, what would be the best way to run this? I have assumed a cron like scheduled worker with a named key, but I don?t know. My worker looks like this: class EmailProcessorWorker < BackgrounDRb::Worker::RailsBase def do_work(args) queue = EmailQueue.new queue.process_queue end end EmailProcessorWorker.register I do all the work in a Rails Model, since I can unit test it outside of backgroundrb. Does anyone have a backgroundrb_schedules.yml file I could use as an example, and should this run something like every 15 minutes, etc., or should it start once,...

Hi: This series tries to implement tx batching support for vhost. This was done by using MSG_MORE as a hint for under layer socket. The backend (e.g tap) can then batch the packets temporarily in a list and submit it all once the number of bacthed exceeds a limitation. Tests shows obvious improvement on guest pktgen over over mlx4(noqueue) on host: Mpps -+%

Hi: This series tries to implement tx batching support for vhost. This was done by using MSG_MORE as a hint for under layer socket. The backend (e.g tap) can then batch the packets temporarily in a list and submit it all once the number of bacthed exceeds a limitation. Tests shows obvious improvement on guest pktgen over over mlx4(noqueue) on host: Mpps -+%

...oczi wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 04:09:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> +static int tun_rx_batched(struct tun_file *tfile, struct sk_buff *skb, >> + int more) >> +{ >> + struct sk_buff_head *queue = &tfile->sk.sk_write_queue; >> + struct sk_buff_head process_queue; >> + int qlen; >> + bool rcv = false; >> + >> + spin_lock(&queue->lock); > Should this be spin_lock_bh()? Below and in tun_get_user() there are > explicit local_bh_disable() calls so I guess BHs can interrupt us here > and this would deadlock. sk_write_que...