Re: [PATCH 1/3] tuntap: rx batching

[John Fastabend]

On 16-11-10 07:31 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 10:07:44AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2016å11æ10æ 00:38, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 03:38:31PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> Backlog were used for tuntap rx, but it can only process 1 packet at
>>>> one time since it was scheduled during sendmsg() synchronously in
>>>> process context. This lead bad cache utilization so this patch tries
>>>> to do some batching before call rx NAPI. This is done through:
>>>>
>>>> - accept 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.
>>>> - implement a tuntap specific NAPI handler for processing this kind of
>>>>    possible batching. (This could be done by extending backlog to
>>>>    support skb like, but using a tun specific one looks cleaner and
>>>>    easier for future extension).
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> So why do we need an extra queue?
>>
>> The idea was borrowed from backlog to allow some kind of bulking and avoid
>> spinlock on each dequeuing.
>>
>>>   This is not what hardware devices do.
>>> How about adding the packet to queue unconditionally, deferring
>>> signalling until we get sendmsg without MSG_MORE?
>>
>> Then you need touch spinlock when dequeuing each packet.
> 

Random thought, I have a cmpxchg ring I am using for the qdisc work that
could possibly replace the spinlock implementation. I haven't figured
out the resizing API yet because I did not need it but I assume it could
help here and let you dequeue multiple skbs in one operation.

I can post the latest version if useful or an older version is
somewhere on patchworks as well.

.John


> It runs on the same CPU, right? Otherwise we should use skb_array...
> 
>>>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/net/tun.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
>>>>   1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>   	rxhash = skb_get_hash(skb);
>>>> -	netif_rx_ni(skb);
>>>> +	skb_queue_tail(&tfile->socket.sk->sk_write_queue, skb);
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!more) {
>>>> +		local_bh_disable();
>>>> +		napi_schedule(&tfile->napi);
>>>> +		local_bh_enable();
>>> Why do we need to disable bh here? I thought napi_schedule can
>>> be called from any context.
>>
>> Yes, it's unnecessary. Will remove.
>>
>> Thanks