search for: sk_write_queu

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....

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....

On 2017?01?03? 21:33, Stefan Hajnoczi 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 h...

...of packets batched in rx"); + /* Uncomment to enable debugging */ /* #define TUN_DEBUG 1 */ @@ -522,6 +526,7 @@ static void tun_queue_purge(struct tun_file *tfile) while ((skb = skb_array_consume(&tfile->tx_array)) != NULL) kfree_skb(skb); + skb_queue_purge(&tfile->sk.sk_write_queue); skb_queue_purge(&tfile->sk.sk_error_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...

...of packets batched in rx"); + /* Uncomment to enable debugging */ /* #define TUN_DEBUG 1 */ @@ -522,6 +526,7 @@ static void tun_queue_purge(struct tun_file *tfile) while ((skb = skb_array_consume(&tfile->tx_array)) != NULL) kfree_skb(skb); + skb_queue_purge(&tfile->sk.sk_write_queue); skb_queue_purge(&tfile->sk.sk_error_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-&...

...id *security; u32 flow_count; + u32 rx_batched; struct tun_pcpu_stats __percpu *pcpu_stats; }; @@ -522,6 +523,7 @@ static void tun_queue_purge(struct tun_file *tfile) while ((skb = skb_array_consume(&tfile->tx_array)) != NULL) kfree_skb(skb); + skb_queue_purge(&tfile->sk.sk_write_queue); skb_queue_purge(&tfile->sk.sk_error_queue); } @@ -1139,10 +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_...

...id *security; u32 flow_count; + u32 rx_batched; struct tun_pcpu_stats __percpu *pcpu_stats; }; @@ -522,6 +523,7 @@ static void tun_queue_purge(struct tun_file *tfile) while ((skb = skb_array_consume(&tfile->tx_array)) != NULL) kfree_skb(skb); + skb_queue_purge(&tfile->sk.sk_write_queue); skb_queue_purge(&tfile->sk.sk_error_queue); } @@ -1140,10 +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_...

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 -+%

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 -+%

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 -+%

..._batched; > struct tun_pcpu_stats __percpu *pcpu_stats; > }; > > @@ -522,6 +523,7 @@ static void tun_queue_purge(struct tun_file *tfile) > while ((skb = skb_array_consume(&tfile->tx_array)) != NULL) > kfree_skb(skb); > > + skb_queue_purge(&tfile->sk.sk_write_queue); > skb_queue_purge(&tfile->sk.sk_error_queue); > } > > @@ -1140,10 +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...

..._batched; > struct tun_pcpu_stats __percpu *pcpu_stats; > }; > > @@ -522,6 +523,7 @@ static void tun_queue_purge(struct tun_file *tfile) > while ((skb = skb_array_consume(&tfile->tx_array)) != NULL) > kfree_skb(skb); > > + skb_queue_purge(&tfile->sk.sk_write_queue); > skb_queue_purge(&tfile->sk.sk_error_queue); > } > > @@ -1140,10 +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...

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 -+%

...{ + __skb_queue_tail(&vmc->backlog_skb_q, skb); + ret = 1; + } + spin_unlock(&vmc->backlog_skb_q.lock); +unlock: + sock_put(sk); + return ret; +} + +static void vmchannel_sock_destruct(struct sock *sk) +{ + skb_queue_purge(&sk->sk_receive_queue); + skb_queue_purge(&sk->sk_write_queue); +} + +static struct sock *vmchannel_sock_alloc(struct socket *sock, int proto, + gfp_t prio) +{ + struct sock *sk; + + sk = sk_alloc(&init_net, PF_VMCHANNEL, prio, &vmchannel_proto); + + if (!sk) + return NULL; + + sock_init_data(sock, sk); + skb_queue_head_init(&vmchannel_sk(sk)-&...

...{ + __skb_queue_tail(&vmc->backlog_skb_q, skb); + ret = 1; + } + spin_unlock(&vmc->backlog_skb_q.lock); +unlock: + sock_put(sk); + return ret; +} + +static void vmchannel_sock_destruct(struct sock *sk) +{ + skb_queue_purge(&sk->sk_receive_queue); + skb_queue_purge(&sk->sk_write_queue); +} + +static struct sock *vmchannel_sock_alloc(struct socket *sock, int proto, + gfp_t prio) +{ + struct sock *sk; + + sk = sk_alloc(&init_net, PF_VMCHANNEL, prio, &vmchannel_proto); + + if (!sk) + return NULL; + + sock_init_data(sock, sk); + skb_queue_head_init(&vmchannel_sk(sk)-&...