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
|
Home