lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] vdpa: mlx5: prevent cvq work from hogging CPU
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 2:17 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 02:04:19PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:34:09 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 8:54 AM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:59:14 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, there will be no "infinite" loop, but since the loop is triggered
> > > > > by userspace. It looks to me it will delay the flush/drain of the
> > > > > workqueue forever which is still suboptimal.
> > > >
> > > > Usually it is barely possible to shoot two birds using a stone.
> > > >
> > > > Given the "forever", I am inclined to not running faster, hehe, though
> > > > another cobble is to add another line in the loop checking if mvdev is
> > > > unregistered, and for example make mvdev->cvq unready before destroying
> > > > workqueue.
> > > >
> > > > static void mlx5_vdpa_dev_del(struct vdpa_mgmt_dev *v_mdev, struct vdpa_device *dev)
> > > > {
> > > > struct mlx5_vdpa_mgmtdev *mgtdev = container_of(v_mdev, struct mlx5_vdpa_mgmtdev, mgtdev);
> > > > struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev = to_mvdev(dev);
> > > > struct mlx5_vdpa_net *ndev = to_mlx5_vdpa_ndev(mvdev);
> > > >
> > > > mlx5_notifier_unregister(mvdev->mdev, &ndev->nb);
> > > > destroy_workqueue(mvdev->wq);
> > > > _vdpa_unregister_device(dev);
> > > > mgtdev->ndev = NULL;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, so we had
> > >
> > > 1) using a quota for re-requeue
> > > 2) using something like
> > >
> > > while (READ_ONCE(cvq->ready)) {
> > > ...
> > > cond_resched();
> > > }
> > >
> > > There should not be too much difference except we need to use
> > > cancel_work_sync() instead of flush_work for 1).
> > >
> > > I would keep the code as is but if you stick I can change.
> >
> > No Sir I would not - I am simply not a fan of work requeue.
> >
> > Hillf
>
> I think I agree - requeue adds latency spikes under heavy load -
> unfortunately, not measured by netperf but still important
> for latency sensitive workloads. Checking a flag is cheaper.

Just spot another possible issue.

The workqueue will be used by another work to update the carrier
(event_handler()). Using cond_resched() may still have unfair issue
which blocks the carrier update for infinite time,

Thanks

>
> --
> MST
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-03-24 09:21    [W:0.091 / U:0.916 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site