On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:06:43AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>
> On 2018/12/11 上午9:34, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 05:44:52PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > When we try to do rx busy polling in tx path in commit 441abde4cd84
> > > ("net: vhost: add rx busy polling in tx path"), we lock rx vq mutex
> > > after tx vq mutex is held. This may lead deadlock so we try to lock vq
> > > one by one in commit 78139c94dc8c ("net: vhost: lock the vqs one by
> > > one"). With this commit, we avoid the deadlock with the assumption
> > > that handle_rx() and handle_tx() run in a same process. But this
> > > commit remove the protection for IOTLB updating which requires the
> > > mutex of each vq to be held.
> > >
> > > To solve this issue, the first step is to have a exact same lock
> > > ordering for vhost_net. This is done through:
> > >
> > > - For handle_rx(), if busy polling is enabled, lock tx vq immediately.
> > > - For handle_tx(), always lock rx vq before tx vq, and unlock it if
> > > busy polling is not enabled.
> > > - Remove the tricky locking codes in busy polling.
> > >
> > > With this, we can have a exact same lock ordering for vhost_net, this
> > > allows us to safely revert commit 78139c94dc8c ("net: vhost: lock the
> > > vqs one by one") in next patch.
> > >
> > > The patch will add two more atomic operations on the tx path during
> > > each round of handle_tx(). 1 byte TCP_RR does not notice such
> > > overhead.
> > >
> > > Fixes: commit 78139c94dc8c ("net: vhost: lock the vqs one by one")
> > > Cc: Tonghao Zhang<xiangxia.m.yue@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang<jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/vhost/net.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > > index ab11b2bee273..5f272ab4d5b4 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> > > @@ -513,7 +513,6 @@ static void vhost_net_busy_poll(struct vhost_net *net,
> > > struct socket *sock;
> > > struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = poll_rx ? tvq : rvq;
> > > - mutex_lock_nested(&vq->mutex, poll_rx ? VHOST_NET_VQ_TX: VHOST_NET_VQ_RX);
> > > vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, vq);
> > > sock = rvq->private_data;
> > > @@ -543,8 +542,6 @@ static void vhost_net_busy_poll(struct vhost_net *net,
> > > vhost_net_busy_poll_try_queue(net, vq);
> > > else if (!poll_rx) /* On tx here, sock has no rx data. */
> > > vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, rvq);
> > > -
> > > - mutex_unlock(&vq->mutex);
> > > }
> > > static int vhost_net_tx_get_vq_desc(struct vhost_net *net,
> > > @@ -913,10 +910,16 @@ static void handle_tx_zerocopy(struct vhost_net *net, struct socket *sock)
> > > static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
> > > {
> > > struct vhost_net_virtqueue *nvq = &net->vqs[VHOST_NET_VQ_TX];
> > > + struct vhost_net_virtqueue *nvq_rx = &net->vqs[VHOST_NET_VQ_RX];
> > > struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &nvq->vq;
> > > + struct vhost_virtqueue *vq_rx = &nvq_rx->vq;
> > > struct socket *sock;
> > > + mutex_lock_nested(&vq_rx->mutex, VHOST_NET_VQ_RX);
> > > mutex_lock_nested(&vq->mutex, VHOST_NET_VQ_TX);
> > > + if (!vq->busyloop_timeout)
> > > + mutex_unlock(&vq_rx->mutex);
> > > +
> > > sock = vq->private_data;
> > > if (!sock)
> > > goto out;
> > > @@ -933,6 +936,8 @@ static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net)
> > > handle_tx_copy(net, sock);
> > > out:
> > > + if (vq->busyloop_timeout)
> > > + mutex_unlock(&vq_rx->mutex);
> > > mutex_unlock(&vq->mutex);
> > > }
> > So rx mutex taken on tx path now. And tx mutex is on rc path ... This
> > is just messed up. Why can't tx polling drop rx lock before
> > getting the tx lock and vice versa?
>
>
> Because we want to poll both tx and rx virtqueue at the same time
> (vhost_net_busy_poll()).
>
> while (vhost_can_busy_poll(endtime)) {
> if (vhost_has_work(&net->dev)) {
> *busyloop_intr = true;
> break;
> }
>
> if ((sock_has_rx_data(sock) &&
> !vhost_vq_avail_empty(&net->dev, rvq)) ||
> !vhost_vq_avail_empty(&net->dev, tvq))
> break;
>
> cpu_relax();
>
> }
>
>
> And we disable kicks and notification for better performance.
Right but it's all slow path - it happens when queue is
otherwise empty. So this is what I am saying: let's drop the locks
we hold around this.
>
> >
> > Or if we really wanted to force everything to be locked at
> > all times, let's just use a single mutex.
> >
> >
> >
>
> We could, but it might requires more changes which could be done for -next I
> believe.
>
>
> Thanks
I'd rather we kept the fine grained locking. E.g. people are
looking at splitting the tx and rx threads. But if not possible
let's fix it cleanly with a coarse-grained one. A mess here will
just create more trouble later.
--
MST
