On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 09:34:35PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email protected]> wrote on 02/28/2011 03:34:23 PM:
>
> > > The number of vhost threads is <= #txqs. Threads handle more
> > > than one txq when #txqs is more than MAX_VHOST_THREADS (4).
> >
> > It is this sharing that prevents us from just reusing multiple vhost
> > descriptors?
>
> Sorry, I didn't understand this question.
>
> > 4 seems a bit arbitrary - do you have an explanation
> > on why this is a good number?
>
> I was not sure what is the best way - a sysctl parameter? Or should the
> maximum depend on number of host cpus? But that results in too many
> threads, e.g. if I have 16 cpus and 16 txqs.
I guess the question is, wouldn't # of threads == # of vqs work best?
If we process stuff on a single CPU, let's make it pass through
a single VQ.
And to do this, we could simply open multiple vhost fds without
changing vhost at all.
Would this work well?
> > > + struct task_struct *worker; /* worker for this vq */
> > > + spinlock_t *work_lock; /* points to a
> > > dev->work_lock[] entry
> */
> > > + struct list_head *work_list; /* points to a
> > > dev->work_list[]
> entry */
> > > + int qnum; /* 0 for RX, 1 -> n-1 for TX */
> >
> > Is this right?
>
> Will fix this.
>
> > > @@ -122,12 +128,33 @@ struct vhost_dev {
> > > int nvqs;
> > > struct file *log_file;
> > > struct eventfd_ctx *log_ctx;
> > > - spinlock_t work_lock;
> > > - struct list_head work_list;
> > > - struct task_struct *worker;
> > > + spinlock_t *work_lock[MAX_VHOST_THREADS];
> > > + struct list_head *work_list[MAX_VHOST_THREADS];
> >
> > This looks a bit strange. Won't sticking everything in a single
> > array of structures rather than multiple arrays be better for cache
> > utilization?
>
> Correct. In that context, which is better:
> struct {
> spinlock_t *work_lock;
> struct list_head *work_list;
> } work[MAX_VHOST_THREADS];
> or, to make sure work_lock/work_list is cache-aligned:
> struct work_lock_list {
> spinlock_t work_lock;
> struct list_head work_list;
> } ____cacheline_aligned_in_smp;
> and define:
> struct vhost_dev {
> ...
> struct work_lock_list work[MAX_VHOST_THREADS];
> };
> Second method uses a little more space but each vhost needs only
> one (read-only) cache line. I tested with this and can confirm it
> aligns each element on a cache-line. BW improved slightly (upto
> 3%), remote SD improves by upto -4% or so.
Makes sense, let's align them.
> > > +static inline int get_nvhosts(int nvqs)
> >
> > nvhosts -> nthreads?
>
> Yes.
>
> > > +static inline int vhost_get_thread_index(int index, int numtxqs, int
> nvhosts)
> > > +{
> > > + return (index % numtxqs) % nvhosts;
> > > +}
> > > +
> >
> > As the only caller passes MAX_VHOST_THREADS,
> > just use that?
>
> Yes, nice catch.
>
> > > struct vhost_net {
> > > struct vhost_dev dev;
> > > - struct vhost_virtqueue vqs[VHOST_NET_VQ_MAX];
> > > - struct vhost_poll poll[VHOST_NET_VQ_MAX];
> > > + struct vhost_virtqueue *vqs;
> > > + struct vhost_poll *poll;
> > > + struct socket **socks;
> > > /* Tells us whether we are polling a socket for TX.
> > > * We only do this when socket buffer fills up.
> > > * Protected by tx vq lock. */
> > > - enum vhost_net_poll_state tx_poll_state;
> > > + enum vhost_net_poll_state *tx_poll_state;
> >
> > another array?
>
> Yes... I am also allocating twice the space than what is required
> to make it's usage simple.
Where's the allocation? Couldn't find it.
> Please let me know what you feel about
> this.
>
> Thanks,
>
> - KK
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
