From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754049AbdEINdV (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 09:33:21 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:51856 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753083AbdEINdU (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 May 2017 09:33:20 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com ACEB6C059749 Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mst@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com ACEB6C059749 Date: Tue, 9 May 2017 16:33:14 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jason Wang Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ptr_ring: batch ring zeroing Message-ID: <20170509163238-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1491544049-19108-1-git-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <20170408141408.2101017e@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170408141408.2101017e@redhat.com> X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.32]); Tue, 09 May 2017 13:33:19 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 08, 2017 at 02:14:08PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote: > On Fri, 7 Apr 2017 08:49:57 +0300 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" wrote: > > > A known weakness in ptr_ring design is that it does not handle well the > > situation when ring is almost full: as entries are consumed they are > > immediately used again by the producer, so consumer and producer are > > writing to a shared cache line. > > > > To fix this, add batching to consume calls: as entries are > > consumed do not write NULL into the ring until we get > > a multiple (in current implementation 2x) of cache lines > > away from the producer. At that point, write them all out. > > > > We do the write out in the reverse order to keep > > producer from sharing cache with consumer for as long > > as possible. > > > > Writeout also triggers when ring wraps around - there's > > no special reason to do this but it helps keep the code > > a bit simpler. > > > > What should we do if getting away from producer by 2 cache lines > > would mean we are keeping the ring moe than half empty? > > Maybe we should reduce the batching in this case, > > current patch simply reduces the batching. > > > > Notes: > > - it is no longer true that a call to consume guarantees > > that the following call to produce will succeed. > > No users seem to assume that. > > - batching can also in theory reduce the signalling rate: > > users that would previously send interrups to the producer > > to wake it up after consuming each entry would now only > > need to do this once in a batch. > > Doing this would be easy by returning a flag to the caller. > > No users seem to do signalling on consume yet so this was not > > implemented yet. > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin > > --- > > > > Jason, I am curious whether the following gives you some of > > the performance boost that you see with vhost batching > > patches. Is vhost batching on top still helpful? > > > > include/linux/ptr_ring.h | 63 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > > 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h > > index 6c70444..6b2e0dd 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/ptr_ring.h > > +++ b/include/linux/ptr_ring.h > > @@ -34,11 +34,13 @@ > > struct ptr_ring { > > int producer ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; > > spinlock_t producer_lock; > > - int consumer ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; > > + int consumer_head ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; /* next valid entry */ > > + int consumer_tail; /* next entry to invalidate */ > > spinlock_t consumer_lock; > > /* Shared consumer/producer data */ > > /* Read-only by both the producer and the consumer */ > > int size ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp; /* max entries in queue */ > > + int batch; /* number of entries to consume in a batch */ > > void **queue; > > }; > > > > @@ -170,7 +172,7 @@ static inline int ptr_ring_produce_bh(struct ptr_ring *r, void *ptr) > > static inline void *__ptr_ring_peek(struct ptr_ring *r) > > { > > if (likely(r->size)) > > - return r->queue[r->consumer]; > > + return r->queue[r->consumer_head]; > > return NULL; > > } > > > > @@ -231,9 +233,38 @@ static inline bool ptr_ring_empty_bh(struct ptr_ring *r) > > /* Must only be called after __ptr_ring_peek returned !NULL */ > > static inline void __ptr_ring_discard_one(struct ptr_ring *r) > > { > > - r->queue[r->consumer++] = NULL; > > - if (unlikely(r->consumer >= r->size)) > > - r->consumer = 0; > > + /* Fundamentally, what we want to do is update consumer > > + * index and zero out the entry so producer can reuse it. > > + * Doing it naively at each consume would be as simple as: > > + * r->queue[r->consumer++] = NULL; > > + * if (unlikely(r->consumer >= r->size)) > > + * r->consumer = 0; > > + * but that is suboptimal when the ring is full as producer is writing > > + * out new entries in the same cache line. Defer these updates until a > > + * batch of entries has been consumed. > > + */ > > + int head = r->consumer_head++; > > + > > + /* Once we have processed enough entries invalidate them in > > + * the ring all at once so producer can reuse their space in the ring. > > + * We also do this when we reach end of the ring - not mandatory > > + * but helps keep the implementation simple. > > + */ > > + if (unlikely(r->consumer_head - r->consumer_tail >= r->batch || > > + r->consumer_head >= r->size)) { > > + /* Zero out entries in the reverse order: this way we touch the > > + * cache line that producer might currently be reading the last; > > + * producer won't make progress and touch other cache lines > > + * besides the first one until we write out all entries. > > + */ > > + while (likely(head >= r->consumer_tail)) > > + r->queue[head--] = NULL; > > + r->consumer_tail = r->consumer_head; > > + } > > + if (unlikely(r->consumer_head >= r->size)) { > > + r->consumer_head = 0; > > + r->consumer_tail = 0; > > + } > > } > > I love this idea. Reviewed and discussed the idea in-person with MST > during netdevconf[1] at this laptop. I promised I will also run it > through my micro-benchmarking[2] once I return home (hint ptr_ring gets > used in network stack as skb_array). I'm merging this through my tree. Any objections? > Reviewed-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer > > [1] http://netdevconf.org/2.1/ > [2] https://github.com/netoptimizer/prototype-kernel/blob/master/kernel/lib/skb_array_bench01.c > -- > Best regards, > Jesper Dangaard Brouer > MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer