[PATCHv2,RFC,4/4] Revert "virtio: make add_buf return capacity remaining:

This reverts commit 3c1b27d5043086a485f8526353ae9fe37bfa1065.
The only user was virtio_net, and it switched to
min_capacity instead.

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c |    2 +-
 include/linux/virtio.h       |    2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:43:25PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> This reverts commit 3c1b27d5043086a485f8526353ae9fe37bfa1065.
> The only user was virtio_net, and it switched to
> min_capacity instead.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>

It turns out another place in virtio_net: receive
buf processing - relies on the old behaviour:

try_fill_recv:
	do {
		if (vi->mergeable_rx_bufs)
			err = add_recvbuf_mergeable(vi, gfp);
		else if (vi->big_packets)
			err = add_recvbuf_big(vi, gfp);
		else
			err = add_recvbuf_small(vi, gfp);

		oom = err == -ENOMEM;
		if (err < 0)
			break;
		++vi->num;
	} while (err > 0);

The point is to avoid allocating a buf if
the ring is out of space and we are sure
add_buf will fail.

It works well for mergeable buffers and for big
packets if we are not OOM. small packets and
oom will do extra get_page/put_page calls
(but maybe we don't care).

So this is RX, I intend to drop it from this patchset and focus on the
TX side for starters.

> ---
>  drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c |    2 +-
>  include/linux/virtio.h       |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> index 23422f1..a6c21eb 100644
> --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c
> @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ add_head:
>  	pr_debug("Added buffer head %i to %p\n", head, vq);
>  	END_USE(vq);
>  
> -	return vq->num_free;
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtqueue_add_buf_gfp);
>  
> diff --git a/include/linux/virtio.h b/include/linux/virtio.h
> index 209220d..63c4908 100644
> --- a/include/linux/virtio.h
> +++ b/include/linux/virtio.h
> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ struct virtqueue {
>   *	in_num: the number of sg which are writable (after readable ones)
>   *	data: the token identifying the buffer.
>   *	gfp: how to do memory allocations (if necessary).
> - *      Returns remaining capacity of queue (sg segments) or a negative error.
> + *      Returns 0 on success or a negative error.
>   * virtqueue_kick: update after add_buf
>   *	vq: the struct virtqueue
>   *	After one or more add_buf calls, invoke this to kick the other side.
> -- 
> 1.7.5.53.gc233e
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 18:54:57 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:43:25PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > This reverts commit 3c1b27d5043086a485f8526353ae9fe37bfa1065.
> > The only user was virtio_net, and it switched to
> > min_capacity instead.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> 
> It turns out another place in virtio_net: receive
> buf processing - relies on the old behaviour:
> 
> try_fill_recv:
> 	do {
> 		if (vi->mergeable_rx_bufs)
> 			err = add_recvbuf_mergeable(vi, gfp);
> 		else if (vi->big_packets)
> 			err = add_recvbuf_big(vi, gfp);
> 		else
> 			err = add_recvbuf_small(vi, gfp);
> 
> 		oom = err == -ENOMEM;
> 		if (err < 0)
> 			break;
> 		++vi->num;
> 	} while (err > 0);
> 
> The point is to avoid allocating a buf if
> the ring is out of space and we are sure
> add_buf will fail.
> 
> It works well for mergeable buffers and for big
> packets if we are not OOM. small packets and
> oom will do extra get_page/put_page calls
> (but maybe we don't care).
> 
> So this is RX, I intend to drop it from this patchset and focus on the
> TX side for starters.

We could do some hack where we get the capacity, and estimate how many
packets we need to fill it, then try to do that many.

I say hack, because knowing whether we're doing indirect buffers is a
layering violation.  But that's life when you're trying to do
microoptimizations.

Cheers,
Rusty.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html