Re: [PATCH net-next V2 3/3] virtio-net: rx busy polling support

On Thursday 17 July 2014 08:25 AM, Jason Wang wrote:

On 07/16/2014 04:38 PM, Varka Bhadram wrote:

quoted

On 07/16/2014 11:51 AM, Jason Wang wrote:

quoted

Add basic support for rx busy polling.

Test was done between a kvm guest and an external host. Two hosts were
connected through 40gb mlx4 cards. With both busy_poll and busy_read
are set to 50 in guest, 1 byte netperf tcp_rr shows 116% improvement:
transaction rate was increased from 9151.94 to 19787.37.

Cc: Rusty Russell <redacted>
Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Vlad Yasevich <redacted>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <redacted>
---
   drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 190
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
   1 file changed, 187 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
index e417d93..4830713 100644
--- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
+++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c

@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
   #include <linux/slab.h>
   #include <linux/cpu.h>
   #include <linux/average.h>
+#include <net/busy_poll.h>
     static int napi_weight = NAPI_POLL_WEIGHT;
   module_param(napi_weight, int, 0444);

@@ -94,8 +95,143 @@ struct receive_queue {
         /* Name of this receive queue: input.$index */
       char name[40];
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL
+    unsigned int state;
+#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_IDLE        0
+#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI         1    /* NAPI or refill owns

this RQ */
+#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL         2    /* poll owns this RQ */
+#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_DISABLED    4    /* RQ is disabled */
+#define VIRTNET_RQ_OWNED (VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI |
VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL)
+#define VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED (VIRTNET_RQ_OWNED |
VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_DISABLED)
+#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD  8    /* NAPI or refill yielded
this RQ */
+#define VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_POLL_YIELD  16   /* poll yielded this RQ */
+    spinlock_t lock;
+#endif  /* CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL */
   };
   +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_RX_BUSY_POLL
+static inline void virtnet_rq_init_lock(struct receive_queue *rq)
+{
+
+    spin_lock_init(&rq->lock);
+    rq->state = VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_IDLE;
+}
+
+/* called from the device poll routine or refill routine to get
ownership of a
+ * receive queue.
+ */
+static inline bool virtnet_rq_lock_napi_refill(struct receive_queue
*rq)
+{
+    int rc = true;
+

bool instead of int...?

Yes, it was better.

quoted

quoted

+    spin_lock(&rq->lock);
+    if (rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED) {
+        WARN_ON(rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI);
+        rq->state |= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD;
+        rc = false;
+    } else
+        /* we don't care if someone yielded */
+        rq->state = VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI;
+    spin_unlock(&rq->lock);

Lock for rq->state ...?

If yes:
spin_lock(&rq->lock);
if (rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_LOCKED) {
     rq->state |= VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI_YIELD;
     spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
     WARN_ON(rq->state & VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI);
     rc = false;
} else {
     /* we don't care if someone yielded */
     rq->state = VIRTNET_RQ_STATE_NAPI;
     spin_unlock(&rq->lock);
}

I didn't see any differences. Is this used to catch the bug of driver
earlier? btw, several other rx busy polling capable driver does the same
thing.

We need not to include WARN_ON() & rc=false under critical section.

-- 
Regards,
Varka Bhadram