similar to: [PATCH net-next V2 0/3] vhost net tx batching

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 -+%

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()?

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()?

From: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 13:20:51 +0800 > @@ -1283,10 +1314,15 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file *tfile, > skb_probe_transport_header(skb, 0); > > rxhash = skb_get_hash(skb); > + > #ifndef CONFIG_4KSTACKS > - local_bh_disable(); > - netif_receive_skb(skb); > - local_bh_enable();

From: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2016 13:20:51 +0800 > @@ -1283,10 +1314,15 @@ static ssize_t tun_get_user(struct tun_struct *tun, struct tun_file *tfile, > skb_probe_transport_header(skb, 0); > > rxhash = skb_get_hash(skb); > + > #ifndef CONFIG_4KSTACKS > - local_bh_disable(); > - netif_receive_skb(skb); > - local_bh_enable();

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 10:13:17AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often > lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do > some batching during rx before submitting them to host network > stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from > sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet

On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 10:13:17AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often > lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do > some batching during rx before submitting them to host network > stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from > sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet

We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do some batching during rx before submitting them to host network stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet temporarily in a linked list and submit them all once MSG_MORE were cleared. Tests

We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do some batching during rx before submitting them to host network stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet temporarily in a linked list and submit them all once MSG_MORE were cleared. Tests

We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do some batching during rx before submitting them to host network stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet temporarily in a linked list and submit them all once MSG_MORE were cleared. Tests

We can only process 1 packet at one time during sendmsg(). This often lead bad cache utilization under heavy load. So this patch tries to do some batching during rx before submitting them to host network stack. This is done through accepting MSG_MORE as a hint from sendmsg() caller, if it was set, batch the packet temporarily in a linked list and submit them all once MSG_MORE were cleared. Tests

From: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.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,

From: Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.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,

Hi all: This series tries to batch submitting packets to underlayer socket through msg_control during sendmsg(). This is done by: 1) Doing userspace copy inside vhost_net 2) Build XDP buff 3) Batch at most 64 (VHOST_NET_BATCH) XDP buffs and submit them once through msg_control during sendmsg(). 4) Underlayer sockets can use XDP buffs directly when XDP is enalbed, or build skb based on XDP

Hi all: This series tries to batch submitting packets to underlayer socket through msg_control during sendmsg(). This is done by: 1) Doing userspace copy inside vhost_net 2) Build XDP buff 3) Batch at most 64 (VHOST_NET_BATCH) XDP buffs and submit them once through msg_control during sendmsg(). 4) Underlayer sockets can use XDP buffs directly when XDP is enalbed, or build skb based on XDP