RE: [PATCH v2] examples/vhost: fix retry logic on eth rx path

["Hu, Jiayu" <jiayu.hu@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xia, Chenbo <chenbo.xia@intel.com>
> Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 5:10 PM
> To: Hu, Jiayu <jiayu.hu@intel.com>; David Marchand
> <david.marchand@redhat.com>; maxime.coquelin@redhat.com
> Cc: Wang, YuanX <yuanx.wang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; He, Xingguang
> <xingguang.he@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org; Ling, WeiX
> <weix.ling@intel.com>; jin.liu@corigine.com; louis.peens@corigine.com;
> peng.zhang@corigine.com; Heinrich Kuhn <heinrich.kuhn@corigine.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] examples/vhost: fix retry logic on eth rx path
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hu, Jiayu <jiayu.hu@intel.com>
> > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 4:59 PM
> > To: Xia, Chenbo <chenbo.xia@intel.com>; David Marchand
> > <david.marchand@redhat.com>; maxime.coquelin@redhat.com
> > Cc: Wang, YuanX <yuanx.wang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; He, Xingguang
> > <xingguang.he@intel.com>; stable@dpdk.org; Ling, WeiX
> > <weix.ling@intel.com>; jin.liu@corigine.com; louis.peens@corigine.com;
> > peng.zhang@corigine.com; Heinrich Kuhn <heinrich.kuhn@corigine.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] examples/vhost: fix retry logic on eth rx path
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Xia, Chenbo <chenbo.xia@intel.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 3:49 PM
> > > To: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>;
> > > maxime.coquelin@redhat.com
> > > Cc: Wang, YuanX <yuanx.wang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Hu, Jiayu
> > > <jiayu.hu@intel.com>; He, Xingguang <xingguang.he@intel.com>;
> > > stable@dpdk.org; Ling, WeiX <weix.ling@intel.com>;
> > > jin.liu@corigine.com; louis.peens@corigine.com;
> > > peng.zhang@corigine.com; Heinrich Kuhn <heinrich.kuhn@corigine.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] examples/vhost: fix retry logic on eth rx
> > > path
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: David Marchand <david.marchand@redhat.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2022 3:36 PM
> > > > To: Xia, Chenbo <chenbo.xia@intel.com>;
> maxime.coquelin@redhat.com
> > > > Cc: Wang, YuanX <yuanx.wang@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org; Hu, Jiayu
> > > > <jiayu.hu@intel.com>; He, Xingguang <xingguang.he@intel.com>;
> > > > stable@dpdk.org; Ling, WeiX <weix.ling@intel.com>;
> > > > jin.liu@corigine.com; louis.peens@corigine.com;
> > > > peng.zhang@corigine.com; Heinrich Kuhn
> > > > <heinrich.kuhn@corigine.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] examples/vhost: fix retry logic on eth rx
> > > > path
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2022 at 5:20 AM Xia, Chenbo <chenbo.xia@intel.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > drain_eth_rx() uses rte_vhost_avail_entries() to calculate the
> > > > > > available entries to determine if a retry is required.
> > > > > > However, this function only works with split rings, and
> > > > > > calculating packed rings will return the wrong value and cause
> > > > > > unnecessary retries resulting in a significant performance penalty.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch fix that by using the difference between tx/rx
> > > > > > burst as the retry condition.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does it mean we don't need the API rte_vhost_avail_entries()
> anymore?
> > > > >
> > > > > Jiayu/Yuan/Maxime, what do you think?
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, I still see a user:
> > > > virtio-forwarder/virtio_vhostuser.c:     * This check ensures that we
> > > > do not call rte_vhost_avail_entries
> > > > virtio-forwarder/virtio_worker.c:        try_rcv =
> > > > rte_vhost_avail_entries((int)relay->vio.vio_dev,
> > > >
> > > > Cc'd a few Corigine guys.
> > >
> > > Thanks David for this info! Then I guess only split ring is used in
> > > this
> > use case?
> > > If we want to keep it, then this API should also be fixed as it's
> > > not
> > supporting
> > > packed ring.
> >
> > Same issue for rte_vhost_rx_queue_count(), and it is used in OVS.
> >
> > But if look into the implementation of rte_vhost_avail_entries(), it
> > calculates the number of available descriptors by " vq->avail->idx -
> > vq-
> > >last_used_idx".
> > This logic looks strange. Anyone knows the reason of this implementation?
> 
> I was not in the history, but as I checked the git log. Seems it's because in this
> commit, this API was not improved (This API is introduced before the
> commit).

Agree. Need a bug fix for this API too.

Thanks,
Jiayu

> 
> commit f6be82d7259ee35683721092d61283d99a47aff1
> Author: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
> Date:   Sun Oct 9 15:27:56 2016 +0800
> 
>     vhost: introduce last available index for dequeue
> 
>     So far, we retrieve both the used ring and avail ring idx by the var
>     last_used_idx; it won't be a problem because the used ring is updated
>     immediately after those avail entries are consumed.
> 
>     But that's not true when dequeue zero copy is enabled, that used ring is
>     updated only when the mbuf is consumed. Thus, we need use another var
> to
>     note the last avail ring idx we have consumed.
> 
>     Therefore, last_avail_idx is introduced.
> 
>     Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com>
>     Reviewed-by: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
>     Tested-by: Qian Xu <qian.q.xu@intel.com>
> 
> Thanks,
> Chenbo
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jiayu
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Chenbo
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Marchand
> > >
> >
>