[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] packed ring layout proposal
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 08:54:06AM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > > On 09/16/2016 10:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:11:59PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 16/09/2016 11:46, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > > > > > > The idea is to have a r/w descriptor in a ring structure, > > > > > > replacing the used and available ring, index and descriptor > > > > > > buffer. > > > > This is probably obvious but: > > > > > > > > Why is the desc.index field needed? > > > > > > > > The index field would be needed if the driver had to jump over a DESC_HW > > > > descriptor when adding descriptors, but that doesn't seem necessary > > > > since the device is supposed to overwrite descriptors in ascending ring > > > > order when they complete out-of-order. > > > > > > AIUI, when reading completed descriptors, the driver uses the index in > > > order to map the descriptor to the original request. > > > > > > It's more of an id; it's certainly not a linked list as in virtio 1.0 rings. > > > > > > I think we can refine the description of the index, saying that only the > > > first descriptor in a request needs an index; descriptors reached via > > > VRING_DESC_F_NEXT do not need an index. The advantage is that the > > > device only needs to remember the descriptor of the first descriptor. > > > > > > However... > > > > > > - is there any reason for the device or driver to even look at DESC_HW > > > if VRING_DESC_F_NEXT is set? DESC_HW only matters on the first buffer. > > > > > > - why not drop VRING_DESC_F_NEXT altogether? > > > > > > Because only two cases are strictly necessary: > > > > > > - single-buffer requests. These have some very important cases: > > > virtio-rng, virtio-serial, virtio-net with merged rxbufs, virtio-scsi > > > and virtio-vsock events, virtio-balloon, virtio-input all use > > > single-buffer requests exclusively. > > > > > > - indirect requests, where the length of the indirect descriptor can be > > > used to figure out the number of buffers > > > > > > Let's just drop the added complication of multi-buffer direct requests. > > > Yes, this can cause one extra cache miss but 1) as shown above a lot of > > > performance-critical cases use single-buffer requests 2) no one has ever > > > bothered to use multi-buffer direct requests in Linux drivers, at least > > > when indirect descriptors are available. > > > > True. I note that dpdk used direct descriptors exclusively until > > very recently. > > commit 6dc5de3a6aefba3946fe04368d93994db3f7a5fd > > Author: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@networkplumber.org> > > Date: Fri Mar 4 10:19:19 2016 -0800 > > > > virtio: use indirect ring elements > > Indeed, and I'd like to add that this patch doesn't enable > VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC, so code was here but not used in mainline. > > It has been fixed few weeks ago, but the patch didn't land yet into > master, only in virtio-next[0]: > > commit b19d3763de3f6c96380b6decf51752acebd2acee > Author: Pierre Pfister <ppfister@cisco.com> > Date: Wed Sep 7 10:46:18 2016 +0800 > > net/virtio: enable indirect descriptors feature > > > > I'd like to make sure removing these doesn't cause regressions. > > Stephen, could you please confirm that > > 1. with your patch, each packet takes at most 1 slot > > 2. your patch was a win for most workloads > > (as opposed to e.g. enabling/disabling this depending on workload) > > > > > Also, it does not look like vhost in dpdk supports > > indirect descriptors. > > I have done the patch for vhost in dpdk[1] two months ago. > It's not merged because I didn't show noticeable gain using it. Note > that I didn't show noticeable loss either. > I'll try to re-run some benchmarks next week. > > Maxime You will likely see a gain if you run linux with a ton of tcp sockets within guest. > [0]: git://dpdk.org/next/dpdk-next-virtio > [1]: http://dpdk.org/dev/patchwork/patch/14797/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]