From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] vsock/virtio: reduce credit update messages Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 03:38:37 -0400 Message-ID: <20190903033344-mutt-send-email-mst__27656.5610359953$1567496333$gmane$org@kernel.org> References: <20190717113030.163499-1-sgarzare@redhat.com> <20190717113030.163499-3-sgarzare@redhat.com> <20190903003050-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20190903073120.kefllalytkvidcvh@steredhat> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190903073120.kefllalytkvidcvh@steredhat> 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: Stefano Garzarella Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , "David S. Miller" List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:31:20AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 12:38:02AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 01:30:27PM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote: > > > In order to reduce the number of credit update messages, > > > we send them only when the space available seen by the > > > transmitter is less than VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella > > > --- > > > include/linux/virtio_vsock.h | 1 + > > > net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- > > > 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h b/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h > > > index 7d973903f52e..49fc9d20bc43 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h > > > @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct virtio_vsock_sock { > > > > > > /* Protected by rx_lock */ > > > u32 fwd_cnt; > > > + u32 last_fwd_cnt; > > > u32 rx_bytes; > > > struct list_head rx_queue; > > > }; > > > diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c > > > index 095221f94786..a85559d4d974 100644 > > > --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c > > > +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c > > > @@ -211,6 +211,7 @@ static void virtio_transport_dec_rx_pkt(struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs, > > > void virtio_transport_inc_tx_pkt(struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs, struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt) > > > { > > > spin_lock_bh(&vvs->tx_lock); > > > + vvs->last_fwd_cnt = vvs->fwd_cnt; > > > pkt->hdr.fwd_cnt = cpu_to_le32(vvs->fwd_cnt); > > > pkt->hdr.buf_alloc = cpu_to_le32(vvs->buf_alloc); > > > spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->tx_lock); > > > @@ -261,6 +262,7 @@ virtio_transport_stream_do_dequeue(struct vsock_sock *vsk, > > > struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs = vsk->trans; > > > struct virtio_vsock_pkt *pkt; > > > size_t bytes, total = 0; > > > + u32 free_space; > > > int err = -EFAULT; > > > > > > spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > > > @@ -291,11 +293,19 @@ virtio_transport_stream_do_dequeue(struct vsock_sock *vsk, > > > virtio_transport_free_pkt(pkt); > > > } > > > } > > > + > > > + free_space = vvs->buf_alloc - (vvs->fwd_cnt - vvs->last_fwd_cnt); > > > + > > > spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock); > > > > > > - /* Send a credit pkt to peer */ > > > - virtio_transport_send_credit_update(vsk, VIRTIO_VSOCK_TYPE_STREAM, > > > - NULL); > > > + /* We send a credit update only when the space available seen > > > + * by the transmitter is less than VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE > > > > This is just repeating what code does though. > > Please include the *reason* for the condition. > > E.g. here's a better comment: > > > > /* To reduce number of credit update messages, > > * don't update credits as long as lots of space is available. > > * Note: the limit chosen here is arbitrary. Setting the limit > > * too high causes extra messages. Too low causes transmitter > > * stalls. As stalls are in theory more expensive than extra > > * messages, we set the limit to a high value. TODO: experiment > > * with different values. > > */ > > > > Yes, it is better, sorry for that. I'll try to avoid unnecessary comments, > explaining the reason for certain changes. > > Since this patch is already queued in net-next, should I send another > patch to fix the comment? > > Thanks, > Stefano I just sent a patch like that, pls ack it. -- MST