qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] virtio-net: introduce RSS and hash report features


From: Yuri Benditovich
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] virtio-net: introduce RSS and hash report features
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:02:38 +0200



On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:19 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 03:57:58PM +0200, Yuri Benditovich wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:47 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>     On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 02:35:13PM +0200, Yuri Benditovich wrote:
>     > Signed-off-by: Yuri Benditovich <address@hidden>
>     > ---
>     >  hw/net/virtio-net.c | 95 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>     >  1 file changed, 95 insertions(+)
>     >
>     > diff --git a/hw/net/virtio-net.c b/hw/net/virtio-net.c
>     > index 3627bb1717..9545b0e84f 100644
>     > --- a/hw/net/virtio-net.c
>     > +++ b/hw/net/virtio-net.c
>     > @@ -71,6 +71,101 @@
>     >  #define VIRTIO_NET_IP6_ADDR_SIZE   32      /* ipv6 saddr + daddr */
>     >  #define VIRTIO_NET_MAX_IP6_PAYLOAD VIRTIO_NET_MAX_TCP_PAYLOAD
>     > 
>     > +/* TODO: remove after virtio-net header update */
>     > +#if !defined(VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_IPv4)
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_F_HASH_REPORT    57  /* Supports hash report */
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_F_RSS            60  /* Supports RSS RX steering */
>     > +
>     > +/* supported/enabled hash types */
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_IPv4          (1 << 0)
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_TCPv4         (1 << 1)
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_UDPv4         (1 << 2)
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_IPv6          (1 << 3)
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_TCPv6         (1 << 4)
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_UDPv6         (1 << 5)
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_IP_EX         (1 << 6)
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_TCP_EX        (1 << 7)
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_TYPE_UDP_EX        (1 << 8)
>     > +
>     > +#define __le16 uint16_t
>     > +#define __le32 uint32_t
>     > +#define __u8   uint8_t
>     > +#define __u16  uint16_t
>     > +#define __u32  uint32_t
>
>     Let's just use uint16_t etc directly please.
>
>     > +struct virtio_net_config_with_rss {
>     > +    /* The config defining mac address (if VIRTIO_NET_F_MAC) */
>     > +    __u8 mac[ETH_ALEN];
>     > +    /* See VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS and VIRTIO_NET_S_* above */
>     > +    __u16 status;
>     > +    /*
>     > +     * Maximum number of each of transmit and receive queues;
>     > +     * see VIRTIO_NET_F_MQ and VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_MQ.
>     > +     * Legal values are between 1 and 0x8000
>     > +     */
>     > +    __u16 max_virtqueue_pairs;
>     > +    /* Default maximum transmit unit advice */
>     > +    __u16 mtu;
>     > +    /*
>     > +     * speed, in units of 1Mb. All values 0 to INT_MAX are legal.
>     > +     * Any other value stands for unknown.
>     > +     */
>     > +    __u32 speed;
>     > +    /*
>     > +     * 0x00 - half duplex
>     > +     * 0x01 - full duplex
>     > +     * Any other value stands for unknown.
>     > +     */
>     > +    __u8 duplex;
>     > +    /* maximum size of RSS key */
>     > +    __u8 rss_max_key_size;
>     > +    /* maximum number of indirection table entries */
>     > +    __le16 rss_max_indirection_table_length;
>     > +    /* bitmask of supported VIRTIO_NET_RSS_HASH_ types */
>     > +    __le32 supported_hash_types;
>     > +} __attribute__((packed));
>     > +
>     > +#define virtio_net_config virtio_net_config_with_rss
>
>     Do we have to? Let's just tweak code to do the right thing...
>
>
> Are we going to update the virtio_net some time?
> If yes, IMO makes sense to do less tweaking in the middle of the code.
> Then, upon update of virtio_net.h - easily remove all these defines that were
> added in virtio-net.c 

We'll update it in a month or two. But I'd be reluctant to merge hacks
since people tend to copy-paste code ...

I agree that merging hacks is very bad practice.
Which change is more looks like a hack: redefine the struct to its _real_ layout or change the type of the struct in 5 places?

 

>
>
>     > +
>     > +struct virtio_net_hdr_v1_hash {
>     > +    struct virtio_net_hdr_v1 hdr;
>     > +    __le32 hash_value;
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_NONE            0
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_IPv4            1
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_TCPv4           2
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_UDPv4           3
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_IPv6            4
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_TCPv6           5
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_UDPv6           6
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_IPv6_EX         7
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_TCPv6_EX        8
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_HASH_REPORT_UDPv6_EX        9
>     > +    __le16 hash_report;
>     > +    __le16 padding;
>     > +};
>     > +
>     > +/*
>     > + * The command VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_MQ_RSS_CONFIG has the same effect as
>     > + * VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_MQ_VQ_PAIRS_SET does and additionally configures
>     > + * the receive steering to use a hash calculated for incoming packet
>     > + * to decide on receive virtqueue to place the packet. The command
>     > + * also provides parameters to calculate a hash and receive virtqueue.
>     > + */
>     > +struct virtio_net_rss_config {
>     > +    __le32 hash_types;
>     > +    __le16 indirection_table_mask;
>     > +    __le16 unclassified_queue;
>     > +    __le16 indirection_table[1/* + indirection_table_mask */];
>     > +    __le16 max_tx_vq;
>     > +    __u8 hash_key_length;
>     > +    __u8 hash_key_data[/* hash_key_length */];
>     > +};
>     > +
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_MQ_RSS_CONFIG          1
>     > +#define VIRTIO_NET_CTRL_MQ_HASH_CONFIG         2
>     > +
>     > +#endif
>     > +
>     >  /* Purge coalesced packets timer interval, This value affects the
>     performance
>     >     a lot, and should be tuned carefully, '300000'(300us) is the
>     recommended
>     >     value to pass the WHQL test, '50000' can gain 2x netperf throughput
>     with
>     > --
>     > 2.17.1
>
>


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]