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 3A43842348; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:50:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mails.dpdk.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7D6E4029F; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:50:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by mails.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D1B40278 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:50:30 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1696924230; 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: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=sF3q2zKo0JCFCXhpzQhGgkgnJInnSAkHBB49VZeWU3o=; b=LnOa1H6Aa3eg0dc+ZkkPEIQgV7YJgNAsPHq/cUEn2fyT+PMGhi2dg2wkpqc4PiW2kuZybq r8grd8EDzdDWGaqWUM51+8oS+cCjgKOrlwFHGOfTrBPGL9RgrciczJD/PgI94e7FpKTvoz VhvvrB9a4dXay4me3pMwagsdTlrYRCo= Received: from mail-lj1-f199.google.com (mail-lj1-f199.google.com [209.85.208.199]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-298-UbLv9PXUPyKVcd2Fl7cnGw-1; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 03:50:28 -0400 X-MC-Unique: UbLv9PXUPyKVcd2Fl7cnGw-1 Received: by mail-lj1-f199.google.com with SMTP id 38308e7fff4ca-2c2c1628af8so45354071fa.0 for ; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 00:50:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1696924227; x=1697529027; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=sF3q2zKo0JCFCXhpzQhGgkgnJInnSAkHBB49VZeWU3o=; b=PPgDvqivdOClaL3fiURaCLxOK2qy5893YVee0iYuaxtSRqKaEAAU0htHdUBe2ydgvy 7v86n12bk6hvu/1KH6iCo+flOUNlrMbcJO5vA8VrgzunYbCbFUP6jQA4rHaDucC10/Fy gFQ8ingSXhBmlU4X6rfT18NuIfkfS5D/ja4MEH39RWOJd4WbRAOzPTXJCqrh+tQ0j132 rh2OQs81GxOFokNWS6x7w3hYqjCOjXH46xWagd8yHJLBw+65tafAcs7BGXYB7jNstXJc rUcfbpVj1SD5MmjeIfW6zq1FsCjzZuOXjKQL01EWxFxsdKpobbzgMkfK2KHzw/e8FpEy mGzA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyNRwZRqFVSw5CX8dwF9o8+lLg1SLGHXuG8mXF5BxfouCve534p GUG2QQNOoiTGmslEeVz21QGJj8SLI4xP239KcwUo3O97A3CTkgWb1jIxpKcaTF16JTfFgBto9cl qgXck01MLxhrTJpKbj/0= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:87d0:0:b0:2bc:d5f1:b9cf with SMTP id v16-20020a2e87d0000000b002bcd5f1b9cfmr15113558ljj.27.1696924227578; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 00:50:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG9WL0oOPwFKkWTFOMujp8KEOuSl01CPEDVoGIlMboH9mTf3r9ge3VNYS0g34DG4d3n9OKu75fUygyKYUqI7Qs= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:87d0:0:b0:2bc:d5f1:b9cf with SMTP id v16-20020a2e87d0000000b002bcd5f1b9cfmr15113545ljj.27.1696924227270; Tue, 10 Oct 2023 00:50:27 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20230929103809.765417-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20230929103809.765417-1-maxime.coquelin@redhat.com> From: David Marchand Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2023 09:50:16 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] vhost: add IRQ suppression To: Maxime Coquelin Cc: dev@dpdk.org, echaudro@redhat.com, chenbo.xia@outlook.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 Fri, Sep 29, 2023 at 12:38=E2=80=AFPM Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > Guest notifications offloading, which has been introduced > in v23.07, aims at offloading syscalls out of the datapath. > > This patch optimizes the offloading by not offloading the > guest notification for a given virtqueue if one is already > being offloaded by the application. > > With a single VDUSE device, we can already see few > notifications being suppressed when doing throughput > testing with Iperf3. We can expect to see much more being > suppressed when the offloading thread is under pressure. > > Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin This looks like a good idea. Reviewed-by: David Marchand --=20 David Marchand