On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 12:29 AM, Ferruh Yigit <ferruh.yi...@intel.com>
wrote:
> On 12/29/2016 11:23 PM, Sergey Vyazmitinov wrote:
> > This allow to significant reduces packets processing latency.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sergey Vyazmitinov <s.vyazmiti...@brain4net.com>
> > ---
> > .../linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_kni_common.h | 6 ++++
> > lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c | 33
> ++++++++++++++++------
> > 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_kni_common.h
> b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_kni_common.h
> > index 09713b0..8183a8e 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_kni_common.h
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/eal/include/exec-env/rte_kni_common.h
> > @@ -109,6 +109,12 @@ struct rte_kni_fifo {
> > void *volatile buffer[]; /**< The buffer contains mbuf
> pointers */
> > };
> >
> > +static inline int
> > +kni_fifo_empty(struct rte_kni_fifo *fifo)
> > +{
> > + return fifo->write == fifo->read;
> > +}
> > +
> > /*
> > * The kernel image of the rte_mbuf struct, with only the relevant
> fields.
> > * Padding is necessary to assure the offsets of these fields
> > diff --git a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c
> b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c
> > index 497db9b..4bf9bfa 100644
> > --- a/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c
> > +++ b/lib/librte_eal/linuxapp/kni/kni_misc.c
> > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ MODULE_AUTHOR("Intel Corporation");
> > MODULE_DESCRIPTION("Kernel Module for managing kni devices");
> >
> > #define KNI_RX_LOOP_NUM 1000
> > +#define KNI_RX_DATA_LOOP_NUM 2500
> >
> > #define KNI_MAX_DEVICES 32
> >
> > @@ -129,25 +130,39 @@ static struct pernet_operations kni_net_ops = {
> > #endif
> > };
> >
> > -static int
> > -kni_thread_single(void *data)
> > +static inline void
> > +kni_thread_single_rx_data_loop(struct kni_net *knet)
> > {
> > - struct kni_net *knet = data;
> > - int j;
> > struct kni_dev *dev;
> > + int i;
> >
> > - while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> > - down_read(&knet->kni_list_lock);
> > - for (j = 0; j < KNI_RX_LOOP_NUM; j++) {
> > - list_for_each_entry(dev, &knet->kni_list_head,
> list) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < KNI_RX_DATA_LOOP_NUM; ++i) {
>
> When there are multiple KNI interfaces, and lets assume there is traffic
> too, this will behave like:
>
> KNI1x2500 data_packets + KNI2x2500 data_packets .... KNI10x2500
>
> After data packets, KNI1 resp_packet + KNI2 resp_packets ...
>
> Won't this scenario also may cause latency? And perhaps jitter according
> KNI interface traffic loads?
>
> This may be good for some use cases, but not sure if this is good for all.
>
We can decrease KNI_RX_DATA_LOOP_NUM to some reasonable value.
I can make test to find lower bound.
Also, the point is in fast check for a new data in interface rx queue.
May be will be better add some kind of break after several kni_net_rx calls.
Without them loop ends very quickly.
Anyway, this patch decrease average latency in my case from 4.5ms to
0.011ms in ping test with 100000 packets.
>
> > + list_for_each_entry(dev, &knet->kni_list_head, list) {
> > + /* Burst dequeue from rx_q */
> > + if (!kni_fifo_empty((struct rte_kni_fifo
> *)dev->rx_q)) {
>
> Do we need this check, since first thing in kni_net_rx_normal() is
> checking if there is item in the queue?
>
> You right. Without that check latency is even less.
> #ifdef RTE_KNI_VHOST
> > kni_chk_vhost_rx(dev);
> > #else
> > kni_net_rx(dev);
> > #endif
> > - kni_net_poll_resp(dev);
> > }
> > }
> > + }
> > + list_for_each_entry(dev, &knet->kni_list_head, list) {
> > + kni_net_poll_resp(dev);
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int
> > +kni_thread_single(void *data)
> > +{
> > + struct kni_net *knet = data;
> > + int j;
> > +
> > + while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> > + down_read(&knet->kni_list_lock);
> > + for (j = 0; j < KNI_RX_LOOP_NUM; j++)
> > + kni_thread_single_rx_data_loop(knet);
> > up_read(&knet->kni_list_lock);
> > #ifdef RTE_KNI_PREEMPT_DEFAULT
> > /* reschedule out for a while */
> >
>
>
