similar to: [PATCH net-next V5 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 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

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

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();

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

Hi all: We do not support XDP batching for TUN since it can only receive one packet a time from vhost_net. This series tries to remove this limitation by: - introduce a TUN specific msg_control that can hold a pointer to an array of XDP buffs - try copy and build XDP buff in vhost_net - store XDP buffs in an array and submit them once for every N packets from vhost_net - since TUN can only

On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 12:05:23PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > This patch introduces to a new tun/tap specific msg_control: > > #define TUN_MSG_UBUF 1 > #define TUN_MSG_PTR 2 > struct tun_msg_ctl { > int type; > void *ptr; > }; > > This allows us to pass different kinds of msg_control through > sendmsg(). The first supported type is ubuf

As multi-queue nics were commonly used for high-end servers, current single queue based tap can not satisfy the requirement of scaling guest network performance as the numbers of vcpus increase. So the following series implements multiple queue support in tun/tap. In order to take advantages of this, a multi-queue capable driver and qemu were also needed. I just rebase the latest version of

As multi-queue nics were commonly used for high-end servers, current single queue based tap can not satisfy the requirement of scaling guest network performance as the numbers of vcpus increase. So the following series implements multiple queue support in tun/tap. In order to take advantages of this, a multi-queue capable driver and qemu were also needed. I just rebase the latest version of

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()?

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