On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 04:24:01PM +0000, Traynor, Kevin wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dev [mailto:dev-boun...@openvswitch.org] On Behalf Of Flavio Leitner > > Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:30 PM > > To: dev@openvswitch.org > > Cc: Flavio Leitner > > Subject: [ovs-dev] [RFC] dpdk: support multiple queues in vhost > > > > This RFC is based on the vhost multiple queues work on > > dpdk-dev: http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/2015-June/019345.html > > Hi Flavio - the patch looks good, one minor comment below. > > > > > Signed-off-by: Flavio Leitner <f...@redhat.com> > > --- > > lib/netdev-dpdk.c | 61 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > -- > > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c > > index 5ae805e..493172c 100644 > > --- a/lib/netdev-dpdk.c > > +++ b/lib/netdev-dpdk.c > > @@ -215,12 +215,9 @@ struct netdev_dpdk { > > * If the numbers match, 'txq_needs_locking' is false, otherwise it is > > * true and we will take a spinlock on transmission */ > > int real_n_txq; > > + int real_n_rxq; > > bool txq_needs_locking; > > > > - /* Spinlock for vhost transmission. Other DPDK devices use spinlocks > > in > > - * dpdk_tx_queue */ > > - rte_spinlock_t vhost_tx_lock; > > - > > /* virtio-net structure for vhost device */ > > OVSRCU_TYPE(struct virtio_net *) virtio_dev; > > > > @@ -602,13 +599,10 @@ dpdk_dev_parse_name(const char dev_name[], const char > > prefix[], > > static int > > vhost_construct_helper(struct netdev *netdev_) OVS_REQUIRES(dpdk_mutex) > > { > > - struct netdev_dpdk *netdev = netdev_dpdk_cast(netdev_); > > - > > if (rte_eal_init_ret) { > > return rte_eal_init_ret; > > } > > > > - rte_spinlock_init(&netdev->vhost_tx_lock); > > return netdev_dpdk_init(netdev_, -1, DPDK_DEV_VHOST); > > } > > > > @@ -791,9 +785,16 @@ netdev_dpdk_vhost_set_multiq(struct netdev *netdev_, > > unsigned int n_txq, > > ovs_mutex_lock(&dpdk_mutex); > > ovs_mutex_lock(&netdev->mutex); > > > > + rte_free(netdev->tx_q); > > + /* FIXME: the number of vqueues needs to match */ > > netdev->up.n_txq = n_txq; > > - netdev->real_n_txq = 1; > > - netdev->up.n_rxq = 1; > > + netdev->up.n_rxq = n_rxq; > > + > > + /* vring has txq = rxq */ > > + netdev->real_n_txq = n_rxq; > > + netdev->real_n_rxq = n_rxq; > > + netdev->txq_needs_locking = netdev->real_n_txq != netdev->up.n_txq; > > + netdev_dpdk_alloc_txq(netdev, netdev->up.n_txq); > > > > ovs_mutex_unlock(&netdev->mutex); > > ovs_mutex_unlock(&dpdk_mutex); > > @@ -904,14 +905,14 @@ netdev_dpdk_vhost_rxq_recv(struct netdev_rxq *rxq_, > > struct netdev *netdev = rx->up.netdev; > > struct netdev_dpdk *vhost_dev = netdev_dpdk_cast(netdev); > > struct virtio_net *virtio_dev = netdev_dpdk_get_virtio(vhost_dev); > > - int qid = 1; > > + int qid = rxq_->queue_id; > > uint16_t nb_rx = 0; > > > > if (OVS_UNLIKELY(!is_vhost_running(virtio_dev))) { > > return EAGAIN; > > } > > > > - nb_rx = rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(virtio_dev, qid, > > + nb_rx = rte_vhost_dequeue_burst(virtio_dev, VIRTIO_TXQ + qid * 2, > > vhost_dev->dpdk_mp->mp, > > (struct rte_mbuf **)packets, > > NETDEV_MAX_BURST); > > @@ -958,8 +959,9 @@ netdev_dpdk_rxq_recv(struct netdev_rxq *rxq_, struct > > dp_packet **packets, > > } > > > > static void > > -__netdev_dpdk_vhost_send(struct netdev *netdev, struct dp_packet **pkts, > > - int cnt, bool may_steal) > > +__netdev_dpdk_vhost_send(struct netdev *netdev, int qid, > > + struct dp_packet **pkts, int cnt, > > + bool may_steal) > > { > > struct netdev_dpdk *vhost_dev = netdev_dpdk_cast(netdev); > > struct virtio_net *virtio_dev = netdev_dpdk_get_virtio(vhost_dev); > > @@ -974,13 +976,16 @@ __netdev_dpdk_vhost_send(struct netdev *netdev, struct > > dp_packet **pkts, > > goto out; > > } > > > > - /* There is vHost TX single queue, So we need to lock it for TX. */ > > - rte_spinlock_lock(&vhost_dev->vhost_tx_lock); > > + if (vhost_dev->txq_needs_locking) { > > + qid = qid % vhost_dev->real_n_txq; > > + rte_spinlock_lock(&vhost_dev->tx_q[qid].tx_lock); > > + } > > > > do { > > + int vhost_qid = VIRTIO_RXQ + qid * VIRTIO_QNUM; > > unsigned int tx_pkts; > > > > - tx_pkts = rte_vhost_enqueue_burst(virtio_dev, VIRTIO_RXQ, > > + tx_pkts = rte_vhost_enqueue_burst(virtio_dev, vhost_qid, > > cur_pkts, cnt); > > if (OVS_LIKELY(tx_pkts)) { > > /* Packets have been sent.*/ > > @@ -999,7 +1004,7 @@ __netdev_dpdk_vhost_send(struct netdev *netdev, struct > > dp_packet **pkts, > > * Unable to enqueue packets to vhost interface. > > * Check available entries before retrying. > > */ > > - while (!rte_vring_available_entries(virtio_dev, VIRTIO_RXQ)) { > > + while (!rte_vring_available_entries(virtio_dev, vhost_qid)) { > > if (OVS_UNLIKELY((rte_get_timer_cycles() - start) > > > timeout)) { > > expired = 1; > > break; > > @@ -1011,7 +1016,10 @@ __netdev_dpdk_vhost_send(struct netdev *netdev, > > struct > > dp_packet **pkts, > > } > > } > > } while (cnt); > > - rte_spinlock_unlock(&vhost_dev->vhost_tx_lock); > > + > > + if (vhost_dev->txq_needs_locking) { > > + rte_spinlock_unlock(&vhost_dev->tx_q[qid].tx_lock); > > + } > > > > rte_spinlock_lock(&vhost_dev->stats_lock); > > vhost_dev->stats.tx_packets += (total_pkts - cnt); > > @@ -1116,7 +1124,7 @@ dpdk_do_tx_copy(struct netdev *netdev, int qid, struct > > dp_packet **pkts, > > } > > > > if (dev->type == DPDK_DEV_VHOST) { > > - __netdev_dpdk_vhost_send(netdev, (struct dp_packet **) mbufs, > > newcnt, true); > > + __netdev_dpdk_vhost_send(netdev, qid, (struct dp_packet **) mbufs, > > newcnt, true); > > } else { > > dpdk_queue_pkts(dev, qid, mbufs, newcnt); > > dpdk_queue_flush(dev, qid); > > @@ -1128,7 +1136,7 @@ dpdk_do_tx_copy(struct netdev *netdev, int qid, struct > > dp_packet **pkts, > > } > > > > static int > > -netdev_dpdk_vhost_send(struct netdev *netdev, int qid OVS_UNUSED, struct > > dp_packet **pkts, > > +netdev_dpdk_vhost_send(struct netdev *netdev, int qid, struct dp_packet > > **pkts, > > int cnt, bool may_steal) > > { > > if (OVS_UNLIKELY(pkts[0]->source != DPBUF_DPDK)) { > > @@ -1141,7 +1149,7 @@ netdev_dpdk_vhost_send(struct netdev *netdev, int qid > > OVS_UNUSED, struct dp_pack > > } > > } > > } else { > > - __netdev_dpdk_vhost_send(netdev, pkts, cnt, may_steal); > > + __netdev_dpdk_vhost_send(netdev, qid, pkts, cnt, may_steal); > > } > > return 0; > > } > > @@ -1656,7 +1664,18 @@ new_device(struct virtio_net *dev) > > /* Add device to the vhost port with the same name as that passed down. > > */ > > LIST_FOR_EACH(netdev, list_node, &dpdk_list) { > > if (strncmp(dev->ifname, netdev->vhost_id, IF_NAME_SZ) == 0) { > > + int qp_num = rte_vhost_qp_num_get(dev); > > ovs_mutex_lock(&netdev->mutex); > > + if (qp_num != netdev->real_n_rxq) { > > + VLOG_INFO("vHost Device '%s' (%ld) can't be added - " > > + "unmatched number of queues %d and %d", > > + dev->ifname, dev->device_fh, qp_num, > > + netdev->real_n_rxq); > > In this case, could we adjust our real_n_tx/rxq to the num supported by the > device and set txq_needs_locking, rather than return error?
Yes, I did that in an earlier devel version. But I took a step back as it seems that the number of queues could be a property of the port, not of the whole datapath. If so, that could change how queues work. The question is whether we want all devices to have the same number of (perhaps virtual) RX queues. fbl > > + ovs_mutex_unlock(&netdev->mutex); > > + ovs_mutex_unlock(&dpdk_mutex); > > + return -1; > > + } > > + > > ovsrcu_set(&netdev->virtio_dev, dev); > > ovs_mutex_unlock(&netdev->mutex); > > exists = true; > > -- > > 2.1.0 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dev mailing list > > dev@openvswitch.org > > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
