lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] virtio_ring: introduce a per virtqueue waitqueue
From

在 2022/12/27 17:38, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 05:12:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> 在 2022/12/27 15:33, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道:
>>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 12:30:35PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> But device is still going and will later use the buffers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same for timeout really.
>>>> Avoiding infinite wait/poll is one of the goals, another is to sleep.
>>>> If we think the timeout is hard, we can start from the wait.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>> If the goal is to avoid disrupting traffic while CVQ is in use,
>>> that sounds more reasonable. E.g. someone is turning on promisc,
>>> a spike in CPU usage might be unwelcome.
>>
>> Yes, this would be more obvious is UP is used.
>>
>>
>>> things we should be careful to address then:
>>> 1- debugging. Currently it's easy to see a warning if CPU is stuck
>>> in a loop for a while, and we also get a backtrace.
>>> E.g. with this - how do we know who has the RTNL?
>>> We need to integrate with kernel/watchdog.c for good results
>>> and to make sure policy is consistent.
>>
>> That's fine, will consider this.
>>
>>
>>> 2- overhead. In a very common scenario when device is in hypervisor,
>>> programming timers etc has a very high overhead, at bootup
>>> lots of CVQ commands are run and slowing boot down is not nice.
>>> let's poll for a bit before waiting?
>>
>> Then we go back to the question of choosing a good timeout for poll. And
>> poll seems problematic in the case of UP, scheduler might not have the
>> chance to run.
> Poll just a bit :) Seriously I don't know, but at least check once
> after kick.


I think it is what the current code did where the condition will be
check before trying to sleep in the wait_event().


>
>>> 3- suprise removal. need to wake up thread in some way. what about
>>> other cases of device breakage - is there a chance this
>>> introduces new bugs around that? at least enumerate them please.
>>
>> The current code did:
>>
>> 1) check for vq->broken
>> 2) wakeup during BAD_RING()
>>
>> So we won't end up with a never woke up process which should be fine.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> BTW BAD_RING on removal will trigger dev_err. Not sure that is a good
> idea - can cause crashes if kernel panics on error.


Yes, it's better to use __virtqueue_break() instead.

But consider we will start from a wait first, I will limit the changes
in virtio-net without bothering virtio core.

Thanks


>
>>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:22    [W:0.078 / U:0.432 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site