From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mails.dpdk.org (mails.dpdk.org [217.70.189.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D1442AF1; Thu, 18 May 2023 16:46:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC91942BC9; Thu, 18 May 2023 16:46:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97D7142BAC for ; Thu, 18 May 2023 16:46:30 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1684421190; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=H8QTkAMOJd9uP+nOFW9Aijb/nivotHM89npEgjO5TOk=; b=OFad8Ej8JMDZ5mK+vbyXyWK60ZwVcBVCsDJpEm7hpG9+lziRJMQrtHTx/Gc6AWXH9iTXZ1 EO84xGbhxwPcO7I/V94XSZth4UmZfVVMsBVLn4V365zB6vbWqzoADRBpkI1KgDawbm3bCv UVMs4wo5Fd0c+6mQWeVsbYamdr2nncU= Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-199-03v-Yl9ANQWPUx3C-VkGMA-1; Thu, 18 May 2023 10:46:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 03v-Yl9ANQWPUx3C-VkGMA-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-50bc88edf7eso2163220a12.2 for ; Thu, 18 May 2023 07:46:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1684421187; x=1687013187; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:message-id:date:subject:cc:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=H8QTkAMOJd9uP+nOFW9Aijb/nivotHM89npEgjO5TOk=; b=la/0sh65qJSkGglUDv4eCuaym9LFVfb4iJNJSq+XRasJDLlSYdOIRscVjnzYsrVFqa /pMbv/Vrd4QWQgYdJUiyJjkixNXMFib+1ZjljkXHv/fAj0fbTQ8yZqCrsMSEQlwM0CgT er4NAMjUtOXWitIzqVa1lnZdL3udOfl6QBSj5kcHXThtCI37RYW4+3tTWkWCKNUs5FOf +uEzqoJbuMXEB5ahVGCheCiQlMezpuh+ObPYEyI4cEdB8vuaysxCrqHA+qDzF+cV3+96 GWX03zSigCZrDykVCz3gqQ/g2YmGawTbbdew20FGrHN/mWRz18elm3hRWL12rsYWhor7 ABMA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwWW5VG8JlSHCbjb/qWcF6jSGeyZmAzjKUiFg6vkaD3YCj+71ZY 1agWWsmwKjLimxkZAVkJj/UlG8kf0P60P0nqh/T82/djP/cQgRe8TtYekR4DykT0cAn7Rrsxdxm vYcI= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:ce0d:0:b0:50b:df56:8d68 with SMTP id d13-20020aa7ce0d000000b0050bdf568d68mr4805625edv.9.1684421187460; Thu, 18 May 2023 07:46:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4wxRslmRBN/M2gk4B+2234HX+k/H5tQHr0k3Pe2bs+mzNbPTQoeQ5sfBxtwBCcIZD6Zi0njQ== X-Received: by 2002:aa7:ce0d:0:b0:50b:df56:8d68 with SMTP id d13-20020aa7ce0d000000b0050bdf568d68mr4805612edv.9.1684421187139; Thu, 18 May 2023 07:46:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.241.128] (5920ab7b.static.cust.trined.nl. [89.32.171.123]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id rp14-20020a170906d96e00b0096637a19dc7sm1072715ejb.108.2023.05.18.07.46.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 May 2023 07:46:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Eelco Chaudron To: Maxime Coquelin Cc: chenbo.xia@intel.com, david.marchand@redhat.com, dev@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] vhost: change vhost_virtqueue access lock to a read/write one Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 16:46:25 +0200 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.14r5964) Message-ID: <32FE5E42-5C94-4931-8366-1396B8CB2397@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4c426886-90aa-80d6-5372-c891eff3fcab@redhat.com> References: <168431450017.558450.16680518469610688737.stgit@ebuild.local> <168431452543.558450.14131829672896784074.stgit@ebuild.local> <4c426886-90aa-80d6-5372-c891eff3fcab@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org On 17 May 2023, at 19:33, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > Hi Eelco, > > On 5/17/23 11:08, Eelco Chaudron wrote: >> This change will allow the vhost interrupt datapath handling to be split >> between two processed without one of them holding an explicit lock. >> > > As I had a tuned PVP benchmarking setup at hand, I ran a 0.02% loss > RFC2544 test with and without this patch to ensure moving to RX locks > would not introduce performance regression. > > I can confirm there are no performance regression introduced with this > patch applied: > Tested-by: Maxime Coquelin > > And the patch looks good to me: > Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin Thanks for running the test and doing the review! //Eelco >> Signed-off-by: Eelco Chaudron >> --- >> lib/eal/include/generic/rte_rwlock.h | 17 ++++++ >> lib/vhost/vhost.c | 46 +++++++++-------- >> lib/vhost/vhost.h | 4 +- >> lib/vhost/vhost_user.c | 14 +++-- >> lib/vhost/virtio_net.c | 90 +++++++++++++++++----------------- >> 5 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 77 deletions(-) >>