On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 08:02:27PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>
>
> On 09/23/2016 05:49 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 10:28:23AM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> > > Indirect descriptors are usually supported by virtio-net devices,
> > > allowing to dispatch a larger number of requests.
> > >
> > > When the virtio device sends a packet using indirect descriptors,
> > > only one slot is used in the ring, even for large packets.
> > >
> > > The main effect is to improve the 0% packet loss benchmark.
> > > A PVP benchmark using Moongen (64 bytes) on the TE, and testpmd
> > > (fwd io for host, macswap for VM) on DUT shows a +50% gain for
> > > zero loss.
> > >
> > > On the downside, micro-benchmark using testpmd txonly in VM and
> > > rxonly on host shows a loss between 1 and 4%.i But depending on
> > > the needs, feature can be disabled at VM boot time by passing
> > > indirect_desc=off argument to vhost-user device in Qemu.
> >
> > Even better, change guest pmd to only use indirect
> > descriptors when this makes sense (e.g. sufficiently
> > large packets).
> With the micro-benchmark, the degradation is quite constant whatever
> the packet size.
>
> For PVP, I could not test with larger packets than 64 bytes, as I don't
> have a 40G interface,
Don't 64 byte packets fit in a single slot anyway?
Why would there be an effect with that?
> and line rate with 10G is reached rapidly.
Right but focus on packet loss. you can have that at any rate.
>
> > I would be very interested to know when does it make
> > sense.
> >
> > The feature is there, it's up to guest whether to
> > use it.
> Do you mean the PMD should detect dynamically whether using indirect,
> or having an option at device init time to enable or not the feature?
guest PMD should not use indirect where it slows things down.
> >
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin at redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changes since v2:
> > > =================
> > > - Revert back to not checking feature flag to be aligned with
> > > kernel implementation
> > > - Ensure we don't have nested indirect descriptors
> > > - Ensure the indirect desc address is valid, to protect against
> > > malicious guests
> > >
> > > Changes since RFC:
> > > =================
> > > - Enrich commit message with figures
> > > - Rebased on top of dpdk-next-virtio's master
> > > - Add feature check to ensure we don't receive an indirect desc
> > > if not supported by the virtio driver
> > >
> > > lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c | 3 ++-
> > > lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c | 41
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c
> > > index 46095c3..30bb0ce 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/vhost.c
> > > @@ -65,7 +65,8 @@
> > > (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_CSUM) | \
> > > (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_CSUM) | \
> > > (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO4) | \
> > > - (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO6))
> > > + (1ULL << VIRTIO_NET_F_GUEST_TSO6) | \
> > > + (1ULL << VIRTIO_RING_F_INDIRECT_DESC))
> > >
> > > uint64_t VHOST_FEATURES = VHOST_SUPPORTED_FEATURES;
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c b/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c
> > > index 8a151af..2e0a587 100644
> > > --- a/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c
> > > +++ b/lib/librte_vhost/virtio_net.c
> > > @@ -679,8 +679,8 @@ make_rarp_packet(struct rte_mbuf *rarp_mbuf, const
> > > struct ether_addr *mac)
> > > }
> > >
> > > static inline int __attribute__((always_inline))
> > > -copy_desc_to_mbuf(struct virtio_net *dev, struct vhost_virtqueue *vq,
> > > - struct rte_mbuf *m, uint16_t desc_idx,
> > > +copy_desc_to_mbuf(struct virtio_net *dev, struct vring_desc *descs,
> > > + uint16_t max_desc, struct rte_mbuf *m, uint16_t desc_idx,
> > > struct rte_mempool *mbuf_pool)
> > > {
> > > struct vring_desc *desc;
> > > @@ -693,8 +693,9 @@ copy_desc_to_mbuf(struct virtio_net *dev, struct
> > > vhost_virtqueue *vq,
> > > /* A counter to avoid desc dead loop chain */
> > > uint32_t nr_desc = 1;
> > >
> > > - desc = &vq->desc[desc_idx];
> > > - if (unlikely(desc->len < dev->vhost_hlen))
> > > + desc = &descs[desc_idx];
> > > + if (unlikely((desc->len < dev->vhost_hlen)) ||
> > > + (desc->flags & VRING_DESC_F_INDIRECT))
> > > return -1;
> > >
> > > desc_addr = gpa_to_vva(dev, desc->addr);
> > > @@ -711,7 +712,9 @@ copy_desc_to_mbuf(struct virtio_net *dev, struct
> > > vhost_virtqueue *vq,
> > > */
> > > if (likely((desc->len == dev->vhost_hlen) &&
> > > (desc->flags & VRING_DESC_F_NEXT) != 0)) {
> > > - desc = &vq->desc[desc->next];
> > > + desc = &descs[desc->next];
> > > + if (unlikely(desc->flags & VRING_DESC_F_INDIRECT))
> > > + return -1;
> > >
> > > desc_addr = gpa_to_vva(dev, desc->addr);
> > > if (unlikely(!desc_addr))
> >
> >
> > Just to make sure, does this still allow a chain of
> > direct descriptors ending with an indirect one?
> > This is legal as per spec.
> >
> > > @@ -747,10 +750,12 @@ copy_desc_to_mbuf(struct virtio_net *dev, struct
> > > vhost_virtqueue *vq,
> > > if ((desc->flags & VRING_DESC_F_NEXT) == 0)
> > > break;
> > >
> > > - if (unlikely(desc->next >= vq->size ||
> > > - ++nr_desc > vq->size))
> > > + if (unlikely(desc->next >= max_desc ||
> > > + ++nr_desc > max_desc))
> > > + return -1;
> > > + desc = &descs[desc->next];
> > > + if (unlikely(desc->flags & VRING_DESC_F_INDIRECT))
> > > return -1;
> > > - desc = &vq->desc[desc->next];
> > >
> > > desc_addr = gpa_to_vva(dev, desc->addr);
> > > if (unlikely(!desc_addr))
> > > @@ -878,19 +883,35 @@ rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(int vid, uint16_t queue_id,
> > > /* Prefetch descriptor index. */
> > > rte_prefetch0(&vq->desc[desc_indexes[0]]);
> > > for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> > > + struct vring_desc *desc;
> > > + uint16_t sz, idx;
> > > int err;
> > >
> > > if (likely(i + 1 < count))
> > > rte_prefetch0(&vq->desc[desc_indexes[i + 1]]);
> > >
> > > + if (vq->desc[desc_indexes[i]].flags & VRING_DESC_F_INDIRECT) {
> > > + desc = (struct vring_desc *)gpa_to_vva(dev,
> > > + vq->desc[desc_indexes[i]].addr);
> > > + if (unlikely(!desc))
> > > + break;
> > > +
> > > + rte_prefetch0(desc);
> > > + sz = vq->desc[desc_indexes[i]].len / sizeof(*desc);
> > > + idx = 0;
> > > + } else {
> > > + desc = vq->desc;
> > > + sz = vq->size;
> > > + idx = desc_indexes[i];
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > pkts[i] = rte_pktmbuf_alloc(mbuf_pool);
> > > if (unlikely(pkts[i] == NULL)) {
> > > RTE_LOG(ERR, VHOST_DATA,
> > > "Failed to allocate memory for mbuf.\n");
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > - err = copy_desc_to_mbuf(dev, vq, pkts[i], desc_indexes[i],
> > > - mbuf_pool);
> > > + err = copy_desc_to_mbuf(dev, desc, sz, pkts[i], idx, mbuf_pool);
> > > if (unlikely(err)) {
> > > rte_pktmbuf_free(pkts[i]);
> > > break;
> > > --
> > > 2.7.4
> >
> > Something that I'm missing here: it's legal for guest
> > to add indirect descriptors for RX.
> > I don't see the handling of RX here though.
> > I think it's required for spec compliance.
> >
