Re: [Xen-devel][Pv-ops][PATCH 3/4 v2] Netback: Multiple tasklets support

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:28:50PM +0800, Xu, Dongxiao wrote:
> Netback: Multiple tasklets support.
> 
> Now netback uses one pair of tasklets for Tx/Rx data transaction.
> Netback tasklet could only run at one CPU at a time, and it is
> used to serve all the netfronts. Therefore it has become a
> performance bottle neck. This patch is to use multiple tasklet
> pairs to replace the current single pair in dom0.
> 
> Assuming that Dom0 has CPUNR VCPUs, we define CPUNR kinds of
> tasklets pair (CPUNR for Tx, and CPUNR for Rx). Each pare of
                                                        ^^^ -> pair

> tasklets serve specific group of netfronts. Also for those global
> and static variables, we duplicated them for each group in
> order to avoid the spinlock.

scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict
~/0003-Netback-Multiple-tasklets-support.patch 
CHECK: spinlock_t definition without comment
#42: FILE: drivers/xen/netback/common.h:292:
+       spinlock_t group_operation_lock;

total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 1 checks, 626 lines checked

/home/konrad/0003-Netback-Multiple-tasklets-support.patch has style
problems, please review.  If any of these errors
are false positives report them to the maintainer, see
CHECKPATCH in MAINTAINERS.


> 
> Signed-off-by: Dongxiao Xu <dongxiao.xu@xxxxxxxxx>

+static void netbk_add_netif(struct xen_netbk *netbk, int group_nr,
+                          struct xen_netif *netif)
+{
+       int i;
+       int min_netfront_count;
+       int min_group = 0;
+       spin_lock(&netbk->group_operation_lock);
+       min_netfront_count = netbk[0].netfront_count;
+       for (i = 0; i < group_nr; i++) {
+               if (netbk[i].netfront_count < min_netfront_count) {
+                       min_group = i;
+                       min_netfront_count = netbk[i].netfront_count;

Should you have a 'break' here? I am not sure if it makes sense to go
through all of the tasklets to set the min_group and min_netfrount_count to the 
last
one?

+               }
+       }
+
+       netif->group = min_group;
+       netbk[netif->group].netfront_count++;
+       spin_unlock(&netbk->group_operation_lock);
+}
+
+static void netbk_remove_netif(struct xen_netbk *netbk, struct xen_netif 
*netif)
+{
+       spin_lock(&netbk->group_operation_lock);
+       netbk[netif->group].netfront_count--;
+       spin_unlock(&netbk->group_operation_lock);
+}
+
 static void __netif_up(struct xen_netif *netif)
 {
        enable_irq(netif->irq);
@@ -333,6 +360,8 @@ int netif_map(struct xen_netif *netif, unsigned long 
tx_ring_ref,
        if (netif->rx_comms_area == NULL)
                goto err_rx;
 
+       netbk_add_netif(xen_netbk, xen_netbk_group_nr, netif);
+

Say you have 7 VIFs and only 4 VCPUs, are these netfront_count values
correct?

netbk[0].netfront_count == 1; /* vif0 added */
netbk[3].netfront_count == 1; /* vif1 added */
netbk[2].netfront_count == 1; /* vif2 added */
netbk[1].netfront_count == 1; /* vif3 added */
netbk[0].netfront_count == 2; /* vif4 added */
netbk[3].netfront_count == 2; /* vif5 added */
netbk[2].netfront_count == 2; /* vif6 added */

I just want to make sure I understand the allocation algorithm
correctly.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel