On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:45:30PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 08/26/2015 12:32 AM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> > On 08/25/2015 07:30 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>
> >> On 08/25/2015 06:17 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 04:33:12PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >>>>> For macvlan, switch to use IFF_NO_QUEUE instead of tx_queue_len = 0.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For macvtap, after commit 6acf54f1cf0a6747bac9fea26f34cfc5a9029523
> >>>>> ("macvtap: Add support of packet capture on macvtap
> >>>>> device."). Multiqueue macvtap suffers from single qdisc lock
> >>>>> contention. This is because macvtap claims a non zero tx_queue_len and
> >>>>> it reuses this value as it socket receive queue size.Thanks to
> >>>>> IFF_NO_QUEUE, we can remove the lock contention without breaking
> >>>>> existing socket receive queue length logic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cc: Patrick McHardy <ka...@trash.net>
> >>>>> Cc: Vladislav Yasevich <vyase...@redhat.com>
> >>>>> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>
> >>> Seems to make sense. Give me a day or two to get over the jet lag
> >>> (and get out from under the pile of mail accumulated while I was
> >>> traveling),
> >>> I'll review properly and ack.
> >>>
> >> A note on this patch: only default qdisc were removed but we don't lose
> >> the ability to attach a qdisc to macvtap (though it may cause lock
> >> contention on multiqueue case).
> >>
> > Wouldn't that lock contention be solved if we really had multiple queues
> > for multi-queue macvtaps?
> >
> > -vlad
>
> Yes, but this introduce another layer of txq locks contention?
I don't follow - why does it? Could you clarify please?
> And it
> also needs macvlan multiqueue support. We used to do something like this
> but switch to NETIF_F_LLTX finally. You may refer:
>
> 2c11455321f37da6fe6cc36353149f9ac9183334 macvlan: add multiqueue capability
> 8ffab51b3dfc54876f145f15b351c41f3f703195 macvlan: lockless tx path
My concern is that the moment someone configures a non-standard qdisc
scalability suddenly disappears. That would also be tricky to debug in the
field as not a lot of developers use non-standard qdiscs.
What do you think?
--
MST
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
