From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Wang Subject: [PATCH net-next 3/3] vhost: don't touch avail ring if in_order is negotiated Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 11:00:16 +0800 Message-ID: <20181123030016.4924-4-jasowang__30566.3898041987$1542941949$gmane$org@redhat.com> References: <20181123030016.4924-1-jasowang@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20181123030016.4924-1-jasowang@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: mst@redhat.com, jasowang@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Device use descriptors table in order, so there's no need to read index from available ring. This eliminate the cache contention on avail ring completely. Virito-user + vhost_kernel + XDP_DROP gives about ~10% improvement on TX from 4.8Mpps to 5.3Mpps on Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5600U CPU @ 2.60GHz. Signed-off-by: Jason Wang --- drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 19 ++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c index 3a5f81a66d34..c8be151bc897 100644 --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c @@ -2002,6 +2002,7 @@ int vhost_get_vq_desc(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, __virtio16 avail_idx; __virtio16 ring_head; int ret, access; + bool in_order = vhost_has_feature(vq, VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER); /* Check it isn't doing very strange things with descriptor numbers. */ last_avail_idx = vq->last_avail_idx; @@ -2034,15 +2035,19 @@ int vhost_get_vq_desc(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq, /* Grab the next descriptor number they're advertising, and increment * the index we've seen. */ - if (unlikely(vhost_get_avail(vq, ring_head, - &vq->avail->ring[last_avail_idx & (vq->num - 1)]))) { - vq_err(vq, "Failed to read head: idx %d address %p\n", - last_avail_idx, - &vq->avail->ring[last_avail_idx % vq->num]); - return -EFAULT; + if (!in_order) { + if (unlikely(vhost_get_avail(vq, ring_head, + &vq->avail->ring[last_avail_idx & (vq->num - 1)]))) { + vq_err(vq, "Failed to read head: idx %d address %p\n", + last_avail_idx, + &vq->avail->ring[last_avail_idx % vq->num]); + return -EFAULT; + } + head = vhost16_to_cpu(vq, ring_head); + } else { + head = last_avail_idx & (vq->num - 1); } - head = vhost16_to_cpu(vq, ring_head); /* If their number is silly, that's an error. */ if (unlikely(head >= vq->num)) { -- 2.17.1