Displaying 20 results from an estimated 4000 matches similar to: "[PATCH v3] virtio-net: lower min ring num_free for efficiency"
2019 Aug 14
0
[PATCH] virtio-net: lower min ring num_free for efficiency
This change lowers ring buffer reclaim threshold from 1/2*queue to budget
for better performance. According to our test with qemu + dpdk, packet
dropping happens when the guest is not able to provide free buffer in
avail ring timely with default 1/2*queue. The value in the patch has been
tested and does show better performance.
Signed-off-by: jiangkidd <jiangkidd at hotmail.com>
---
2019 Aug 13
0
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:05:03PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
>
> On 2019/7/20 0:13, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 03:31:29PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
> >> On 2019/7/19 22:29, Jiang wrote:
> >>> On 2019/7/19 10:36, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>>> On 2019/7/18 ??10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019
2019 Jul 23
2
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On 2019/7/20 0:13, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 03:31:29PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
>> On 2019/7/19 22:29, Jiang wrote:
>>> On 2019/7/19 10:36, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2019/7/18 ??10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42:47AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019
2019 Jul 23
2
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On 2019/7/20 0:13, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 03:31:29PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
>> On 2019/7/19 22:29, Jiang wrote:
>>> On 2019/7/19 10:36, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 2019/7/18 ??10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42:47AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019
2019 Jul 18
2
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold num_free configurable for better performance, while it's hard coded as 1/2 * queue now.
According to our test with qemu + dpdk, packet dropping happens when the guest is not able to provide free buffer in avail ring timely.
Smaller value of num_free does decrease the number of packet dropping during our test as it makes virtio_net reclaim buffer
2019 Jul 18
2
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold num_free configurable for better performance, while it's hard coded as 1/2 * queue now.
According to our test with qemu + dpdk, packet dropping happens when the guest is not able to provide free buffer in avail ring timely.
Smaller value of num_free does decrease the number of packet dropping during our test as it makes virtio_net reclaim buffer
2019 Jul 18
0
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:55:50PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
> This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold num_free configurable
> for better performance, while it's hard coded as 1/2 * queue now.
> According to our test with qemu + dpdk, packet dropping happens when
> the guest is not able to provide free buffer in avail ring timely.
> Smaller value of num_free does decrease
2019 Jul 19
1
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On 2019/7/19 22:29, Jiang wrote:
>
> On 2019/7/19 10:36, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/7/18 ??10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42:47AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:01:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> On 2019/7/18 ??9:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>>> On
2019 Jul 19
0
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 03:31:29PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
>
> On 2019/7/19 22:29, Jiang wrote:
> >
> > On 2019/7/19 10:36, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2019/7/18 ??10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42:47AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:01:05PM +0800, Jason Wang
2019 Jul 18
0
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:01:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2019/7/18 ??9:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:55:50PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
> > > This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold num_free configurable
> > > for better performance, while it's hard coded as 1/2 * queue now.
> > > According to our test with
2019 Jul 19
0
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On 2019/7/18 ??10:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42:47AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:01:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>> On 2019/7/18 ??9:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:55:50PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
>>>>> This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold
2019 Jul 18
2
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On 2019/7/18 ??9:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:55:50PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
>> This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold num_free configurable
>> for better performance, while it's hard coded as 1/2 * queue now.
>> According to our test with qemu + dpdk, packet dropping happens when
>> the guest is not able to provide free buffer
2019 Jul 18
2
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On 2019/7/18 ??9:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:55:50PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
>> This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold num_free configurable
>> for better performance, while it's hard coded as 1/2 * queue now.
>> According to our test with qemu + dpdk, packet dropping happens when
>> the guest is not able to provide free buffer
2019 Jul 18
4
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42:47AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:01:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >
> > On 2019/7/18 ??9:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:55:50PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
> > > > This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold num_free configurable
> > > > for better
2019 Jul 18
4
[PATCH] virtio-net: parameterize min ring num_free for virtio receive
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:42:47AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:01:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >
> > On 2019/7/18 ??9:04, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 12:55:50PM +0000, ? jiang wrote:
> > > > This change makes ring buffer reclaim threshold num_free configurable
> > > > for better
2014 Jan 15
0
[PATCH net-next RFC] virtio-net: drop rq->max and rq->num
Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> writes:
> It looks like there's no need for those two fields:
>
> - Unless there's a failure for the first refill try, rq->max should be always
> equal to the vring size.
> - rq->num is only used to determine the condition that we need to do the refill,
> we could check vq->num_free instead.
> - rq->num was
2014 Jan 16
2
[PATCH net-next] virtio-net: drop rq->max and rq->num
It looks like there's no need for those two fields:
- Unless there's a failure for the first refill try, rq->max should be always
equal to the vring size.
- rq->num is only used to determine the condition that we need to do the refill,
we could check vq->num_free instead.
- rq->num was required to be increased or decreased explicitly after each
get/put which results a
2014 Jan 16
2
[PATCH net-next] virtio-net: drop rq->max and rq->num
It looks like there's no need for those two fields:
- Unless there's a failure for the first refill try, rq->max should be always
equal to the vring size.
- rq->num is only used to determine the condition that we need to do the refill,
we could check vq->num_free instead.
- rq->num was required to be increased or decreased explicitly after each
get/put which results a
2014 Jan 15
2
[PATCH net-next RFC] virtio-net: drop rq->max and rq->num
Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> writes:
> Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> writes:
>> It looks like there's no need for those two fields:
>>
>> - Unless there's a failure for the first refill try, rq->max should be always
>> equal to the vring size.
>> - rq->num is only used to determine the condition that we need to do the
2014 Jan 15
2
[PATCH net-next RFC] virtio-net: drop rq->max and rq->num
Rusty Russell <rusty at rustcorp.com.au> writes:
> Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com> writes:
>> It looks like there's no need for those two fields:
>>
>> - Unless there's a failure for the first refill try, rq->max should be always
>> equal to the vring size.
>> - rq->num is only used to determine the condition that we need to do the