Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1408957
| From | Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] skb_array: array based FIFO for skbs |
| Date | 2016-05-30 12:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rEs9j-2s5-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <rBVAR-4HP-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 2016年05月23日 18:43, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > This is in response to the proposal by Jason to make tun > rx packet queue lockless using a circular buffer. > My testing seems to show that at least for the common usecase > in networking, which isn't lockless, circular buffer > with indices does not perform that well, because > each index access causes a cache line to bounce between > CPUs, and index access causes stalls due to the dependency. > > By comparison, an array of pointers where NULL means invalid > and !NULL means valid, can be updated without messing up barriers > at all and does not have this issue. > > On the flip side, cache pressure may be caused by using large queues. > tun has a queue of 1000 entries by default and that's 8K. > At this point I'm not sure this can be solved efficiently. > The correct solution might be sizing the queues appropriately. > > Here's an implementation of this idea: it can be used more > or less whenever sk_buff_head can be used, except you need > to know the queue size in advance. > > It's using skb pointers but we switching to void * would be easy at cost > of type safety, though it appears that people want lockless push > etc so I'm not sure of the value. > > I didn't implement resizing but it's possible by holding > both consumer and producer locks. > > I think this code works fine without any extra memory barriers since we > always read and write the same location, so the accesses can not be > reordered. > Multiple writes of the same value into memory would mess things up > for us, I don't think compilers would do it though. > But if people feel it's better to be safe wrt compiler optimizations, > specifying queue as volatile would probably do it in a cleaner way > than converting all accesses to READ_ONCE/WRITE_ONCE. Thoughts? > > The only issue is with calls within a loop using the __skb_array_XXX > accessors - in theory compiler could hoist accesses out of the loop. > > Following volatile-considered-harmful.txt I merely > documented that callers that busy-poll should invoke cpu_relax(). > Most people will use the external skb_array_XXX APIs with a spinlock, > so this should not be an issue for them. > > changes since v4 (v3 was never posted) > documentation > dropped SKB_ARRAY_MIN_SIZE heuristic > unit test (in userspace, included as patch 2) > > changes since v2: > fixed integer overflow pointed out by Eric. > added some comments. > > changes since v1: > fixed bug pointed out by Eric. > > > Michael S. Tsirkin (2): > skb_array: array based FIFO for skbs > skb_array: ring test > > include/linux/skb_array.h | 127 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tools/virtio/ringtest/skb_array.c | 167 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > tools/virtio/ringtest/Makefile | 4 +- > 3 files changed, 297 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > create mode 100644 include/linux/skb_array.h > create mode 100644 tools/virtio/ringtest/skb_array.c > I change tun to use skb array, looks like it can give about 5% more faster than skb ring. And we usually don't need touch bhs during consume and produce (e.g for the case of tun). Thanks
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v5 0/2] skb_array: array based FIFO for skbs "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-05-23 12:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] skb_array: array based FIFO for skbs Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> - 2016-05-23 15:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] skb_array: array based FIFO for skbs "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-05-23 22:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] skb_array: array based FIFO for skbs Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> - 2016-05-30 12:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] skb_array: array based FIFO for skbs "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> - 2016-05-30 17:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v5 0/2] skb_array: array based FIFO for skbs Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> - 2016-05-31 04:30 +0200
csiph-web