On 02/29/2016 05:56 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:

On 02/26/2016 09:42 AM, Jason Wang wrote:

quoted

quoted

This patch tries to poll for new added tx buffer or socket receive
queue for a while at the end of tx/rx processing. The maximum time
spent on polling were specified through a new kind of vring ioctl.

Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/vhost/net.c        | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 drivers/vhost/vhost.c      | 14 ++++++++
 drivers/vhost/vhost.h      |  1 +
 include/uapi/linux/vhost.h |  6 ++++
 4 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
index 9eda69e..c91af93 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c

@@ -287,6 +287,44 @@ static void vhost_zerocopy_callback(struct ubuf_info *ubuf, bool success)
 	rcu_read_unlock_bh();
 }

+static inline unsigned long busy_clock(void)
+{
+	return local_clock() >> 10;
+}
+
+static bool vhost_can_busy_poll(struct vhost_dev *dev,
+				unsigned long endtime)
+{
+	return likely(!need_resched()) &&
+	       likely(!time_after(busy_clock(), endtime)) &&
+	       likely(!signal_pending(current)) &&
+	       !vhost_has_work(dev) &&
+	       single_task_running();
+}
+
+static int vhost_net_tx_get_vq_desc(struct vhost_net *net,
+				    struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
+				    struct iovec iov[], unsigned int iov_size,
+				    unsigned int *out_num, unsigned int *in_num)
+{
+	unsigned long uninitialized_var(endtime);
+	int r = vhost_get_vq_desc(vq, vq->iov, ARRAY_SIZE(vq->iov),
+				    out_num, in_num, NULL, NULL);
+
+	if (r == vq->num && vq->busyloop_timeout) {
+		preempt_disable();
+		endtime = busy_clock() + vq->busyloop_timeout;
+		while (vhost_can_busy_poll(vq->dev, endtime) &&
+		       vhost_vq_avail_empty(vq->dev, vq))
+			cpu_relax();

Can you use cpu_relax_lowlatency (which should be the same as cpu_relax for almost
everybody but s390? cpu_relax (without low latency might give up the time slice
when running under another hypervisor (like LPAR on s390), which might not be what
we want here.

Ok, will do this in next version.