search for: vhost_net_tx_select_zcopi

On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if > upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used to true and rollback this choice > later. This could be avoided by determining zerocopy once by checking all > conditions at one time before. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at

On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if > upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used to true and rollback this choice > later. This could be avoided by determining zerocopy once by checking all > conditions at one time before. > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at

Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used to true and rollback this choice later. This could be avoided by determine zerocopy once by checking all conditions at one time before. Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> --- drivers/vhost/net.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- 1

Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used to true and rollback this choice later. This could be avoided by determining zerocopy once by checking all conditions at one time before. Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> --- drivers/vhost/net.c | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- 1

On 09/04/2013 07:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if >> upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used to true and rollback this choice >> later. This could be avoided by determining zerocopy once by checking all >> conditions at one

Hello. On 08/30/2013 08:29 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if > upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used to true and rollback this choice > later. This could be avoided by determine zerocopy once by checking all > conditions at one time before. > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> > ---

Hello. On 08/30/2013 08:29 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if > upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used to true and rollback this choice > later. This could be avoided by determine zerocopy once by checking all > conditions at one time before. > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> > ---

Instead of mixing zerocopy and datacopy logics, this patch tries to split datacopy logic out. This results for a more compact code and specific optimization could be done on top more easily. Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> --- drivers/vhost/net.c | 111 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 102 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git

This series tries to unify and simplify vhost codes especially for zerocopy. With this series, 5% - 10% improvement for per cpu throughput were seen during netperf guest sending test. Plase review. Changes from V2: - Typo fixes and code style fix - Add performance gain in the commit log of patch 2/6 - Retest the update the result in patch 6/6 Changes from V1: - Fix the zerocopy enabling check

This series tries to unify and simplify vhost codes especially for zerocopy. With this series, 5% - 10% improvement for per cpu throughput were seen during netperf guest sending test. Plase review. Changes from V2: - Typo fixes and code style fix - Add performance gain in the commit log of patch 2/6 - Retest the update the result in patch 6/6 Changes from V1: - Fix the zerocopy enabling check

On 2018/07/02 15:17, Jason Wang wrote: > On 2018?07?02? 12:37, Toshiaki Makita wrote: >> On 2018/07/02 11:54, Jason Wang wrote: >>> On 2018?07?02? 10:45, Toshiaki Makita wrote: >>>> Hi Jason, >>>> >>>> On 2018/06/29 18:30, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>> On 2018?06?29? 16:09, Toshiaki Makita wrote: >>>> ...

On 2018/07/02 15:17, Jason Wang wrote: > On 2018?07?02? 12:37, Toshiaki Makita wrote: >> On 2018/07/02 11:54, Jason Wang wrote: >>> On 2018?07?02? 10:45, Toshiaki Makita wrote: >>>> Hi Jason, >>>> >>>> On 2018/06/29 18:30, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>> On 2018?06?29? 16:09, Toshiaki Makita wrote: >>>> ...

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 08:25:56PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> >> >> Vhost-net has a hard limit on the number of zerocopy skbs in flight. >> When reached, transmission stalls. Stalls cause latency, as well as >>

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst at redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 08:25:56PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: >> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> >> >> Vhost-net has a hard limit on the number of zerocopy skbs in flight. >> When reached, transmission stalls. Stalls cause latency, as well as >>

From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> Vhost-net has a hard limit on the number of zerocopy skbs in flight. When reached, transmission stalls. Stalls cause latency, as well as head-of-line blocking of other flows that do not use zerocopy. Instead of stalling, revert to copy-based transmission. Tested by sending two udp flows from guest to host, one with payload of

From: Willem de Bruijn <willemb at google.com> Vhost-net has a hard limit on the number of zerocopy skbs in flight. When reached, transmission stalls. Stalls cause latency, as well as head-of-line blocking of other flows that do not use zerocopy. Instead of stalling, revert to copy-based transmission. Tested by sending two udp flows from guest to host, one with payload of

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

We used to stop the handling of tx when the number of pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND. This is used to reduce the memory occupation of both host and guest. But it was too aggressive in some cases, since any delay or blocking of a single packet may delay or block the guest transmission. Consider the following setup: +-----+ +-----+ | VM1 | | VM2 | +--+--+

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 10:54:44AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On 09/04/2013 07:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > >> Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if > >> upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used to true and rollback this choice > >> later. This could

On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 10:54:44AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On 09/04/2013 07:59 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 04:40:59PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > >> Currently, even if the packet length is smaller than VHOST_GOODCOPY_LEN, if > >> upend_idx != done_idx we still set zcopy_used to true and rollback this choice > >> later. This could