Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Guo Zhi <qtxuning1999@sjtu.edu.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.20.0.1.32\))
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/5] vhost_test: batch used buffer
Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2022 10:47:01 +0800
In-Reply-To: <CAJaqyWfgUqdP6mkOUdouvQSst=qc7MOTaigC-EiTg9-gojHqzg@mail.gmail.com>
Cc:     jasowang <jasowang@redhat.com>, sgarzare <sgarzare@redhat.com>,
        Michael Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
To:     eperezma <eperezma@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <5E347090-9EB2-4961-B435-D6783CB46CAF@sjtu.edu.cn>
Precedence: bulk


----- Original Message -----
From: "eperezma" <eperezma@redhat.com>
To: "Guo Zhi" <qtxuning1999@sjtu.edu.cn>
Cc: "jasowang" <jasowang@redhat.com>, "sgarzare" <sgarzare@redhat.com>, "Michael Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, "netdev" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "kvm list" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, "virtualization" <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2022 3:12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/5] vhost_test: batch used buffer

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 10:44 AM Guo Zhi <qtxuning1999@sjtu.edu.cn> wrote:
> 
> Only add to used ring when a batch a buffer have all been used.  And if
> in order feature negotiated, add randomness to the used buffer's order,
> test the ability of vhost to reorder batched buffer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Guo Zhi <qtxuning1999@sjtu.edu.cn>
> ---
> drivers/vhost/test.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/test.c b/drivers/vhost/test.c
> index bc8e7fb1e..1c9c40c11 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/test.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/test.c
> @@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ struct vhost_test {
> static void handle_vq(struct vhost_test *n)
> {
>        struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &n->vqs[VHOST_TEST_VQ];
> +       struct vring_used_elem *heads = kmalloc(sizeof(*heads)
> +                       * vq->num, GFP_KERNEL);
> +       int batch_idx = 0;
>        unsigned out, in;
>        int head;
>        size_t len, total_len = 0;
> @@ -84,11 +87,21 @@ static void handle_vq(struct vhost_test *n)
>                        vq_err(vq, "Unexpected 0 len for TX\n");
>                        break;
>                }
> -               vhost_add_used_and_signal(&n->dev, vq, head, 0);
> +               heads[batch_idx].id = cpu_to_vhost32(vq, head);
> +               heads[batch_idx++].len = cpu_to_vhost32(vq, len);
>                total_len += len;
>                if (unlikely(vhost_exceeds_weight(vq, 0, total_len)))
>                        break;
>        }
> +       if (batch_idx) {
> +               if (vhost_has_feature(vq, VIRTIO_F_IN_ORDER) && batch_idx >= 2) {

Maybe to add a module parameter to test this? Instead of trusting in
feature negotiation, "unorder_used=1" or something like that.

vhost.c:vhost_add_used_and_signal_n should support receiving buffers
in order or out of order whether F_IN_ORDER is negotiated or not.

Thanks!


> +                       vhost_add_used_and_signal_n(&n->dev, vq, &heads[batch_idx / 2],
> +                                                   batch_idx - batch_idx / 2);
> +                       vhost_add_used_and_signal_n(&n->dev, vq, heads, batch_idx / 2);
> +               } else {
> +                       vhost_add_used_and_signal_n(&n->dev, vq, heads, batch_idx);
> +               }
> +       }
> 
>        mutex_unlock(&vq->mutex);
> }
> --
> 2.17.1