From: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>
To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>,
Noa Ezra <noae@mellanox.com>
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/vhost: support mrg-rxbuf disabling
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 11:18:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM0PR0502MB4019CBF6166854662AA0844DD2E20@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01a391c2-f68d-38fc-909b-3fc06100d1f7@redhat.com>
From: Maxime Coquelin
> On 6/26/19 9:50 AM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > Hi Maxim
> >
> > Any response here?
> >
> > Besides that,
> >
> > Regarding the TSO and this patch:
> > I think we shouldn't be so strict to not take them for this version:
> > 1. The later time was a technical issue with the mailer - a mistake.
> > 2. The patches don't change any default and makes sense - will not hurt
> anyone.
> >
> > So I think we can do it beyond the letter of the law.
> >
> > From: Maxime Coquelin
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 10:19 AM
> > > To: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; Noa Ezra
> > <noae@mellanox.com>
> > > Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/vhost: support mrg-rxbuf disabling
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/20/19 8:52 AM, Matan Azrad wrote:
> > > > Hi all
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Noa Ezra
> > > >> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2019 8:58 AM
> > > >> To: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
> > > >> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > >> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] net/vhost: support mrg-rxbuf disabling
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi Maxime,
> > > >> Thanks for your comment, please see below.
> > > >>
> > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >>> From: Maxime Coquelin [mailto:maxime.coquelin@redhat.com]
> > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 12:10 PM
> > > >>> To: Noa Ezra <noae@mellanox.com>
> > > >>> Cc: Matan Azrad <matan@mellanox.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] net/vhost: support mrg-rxbuf disabling
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi Noa,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 6/19/19 8:13 AM, Noa Ezra wrote:
> > > >>>> Rx mergeable buffers is a virtio feature that allows chaining of
> > > >>>> multiple virtio descriptors to handle large packet size.
> > > >>>> This behavior is supported and enabled by default, however in
> > > >>>> case the user knows that rx mergeable buffers are not needed, he
> > > >>>> can disable the feature.
> > > >>>> The user should also set mrg_rxbuf=off in virtual machine's xml.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I'm not sure to understand why it is needed, as the vhost-user
> > > >>> library supports the feature, it's better to let it being advertised.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As you say, it is up to the user to disable it in the VM's XML.
> > > >>> Done this way, the feature won't be negotiated.
> > > >>>
> > > >> I agree with you, I'll remove this patch from the series.
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure that no performance impact exists for redundant
> > > > merg-rx-buf
> > > configuration here?
> > >
> > > I'm not sure to understand what you mean, could you please elaborate?
> > >
> > I guess that if this feature is enabled and the feature actually are not used
> > (no packets are scattered or merged) it will hurt the performance.
>
> Well, latest performance measurements does not show a big impact now on
> enabling mergeable buffers feature unconditionaly.
Did you test small packets \ big?
> > So if one of the sides doesn't want to use it because of performance, it
> may
> > want to disable it.
>
> And even if there is an impact, the way to disable it is through
> Libvirt/Qemu.
Not sure, as TSO application may decide to not do it in spite of it is configured in Qemu.
> > > > What if the second side want it and the current side no?
> > >
> > > The feature won't be negotiated, assuming it has been disabled in
> QEMU
> > > cmdline (or via libvirt).
> > > > It may be that the vhost PMD user may want to disable it to save
> > > performance from some reasons, no?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Then this user should disable it at QEMU level.
> > >
> > So the vhost PMD is not one of the sides to decide?
> > If so, why do we need the APIs to configure the features?
>
> Are you talking about the rte_vhost_driver_set_features() and related
> APIs?
Yes
> This is used for example by the external backends that support features
> specific to the backend type (e.g. crypto), or also used by OVS-DPDK, to
> disable TSO. So these usages are for functional reasons, not tuning.
Exactly, applications (like OVS) may decide to disable features because a lot of reasons.
> > Looks like also the qemu is configured with the feature the VM\host sides
> > may decide in some cases to disable it.
>
> For functional reasons, I agree. So I that's why I agree with your tso
> patch as the application has to support it, but that's not the case of
> the mergeable buffers features.
Performance reasons are not good enough?
> Tiwei, what's your opinion on this?
>
> > > Regards,
> > > Maxime
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-26 11:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-19 6:13 [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] support tso and " Noa Ezra
2019-06-19 6:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 1/2] net/vhost: support TSO disabling Noa Ezra
2019-06-19 9:53 ` Maxime Coquelin
2019-06-20 2:26 ` Tiwei Bie
2019-06-20 6:08 ` Matan Azrad
2019-06-20 7:25 ` Maxime Coquelin
2019-08-30 8:44 ` Maxime Coquelin
2019-09-30 9:02 ` Maxime Coquelin
2019-06-19 6:13 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 2/2] net/vhost: support mrg-rxbuf disabling Noa Ezra
2019-06-19 9:10 ` Maxime Coquelin
2019-06-20 5:57 ` Noa Ezra
2019-06-20 6:52 ` Matan Azrad
2019-06-20 7:19 ` Maxime Coquelin
2019-06-20 7:55 ` Matan Azrad
2019-06-26 7:50 ` Matan Azrad
2019-06-26 10:27 ` Maxime Coquelin
2019-06-26 11:18 ` Matan Azrad [this message]
2019-06-26 12:05 ` Maxime Coquelin
2019-06-26 13:24 ` Matan Azrad
2019-06-26 14:17 ` Maxime Coquelin
2019-06-27 5:04 ` Matan Azrad
2019-08-30 8:48 ` Maxime Coquelin
2019-06-20 7:27 ` Maxime Coquelin
2019-09-30 9:04 ` Maxime Coquelin
2019-06-19 14:20 ` [dpdk-dev] [PATCH 0/2] support tso and " Aaron Conole
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=AM0PR0502MB4019CBF6166854662AA0844DD2E20@AM0PR0502MB4019.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com \
--to=matan@mellanox.com \
--cc=dev@dpdk.org \
--cc=maxime.coquelin@redhat.com \
--cc=noae@mellanox.com \
--cc=tiwei.bie@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).