On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 08:16:59AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:17:28AM +0800, Asias He wrote:
> > Currently, vs->vs_endpoint is used indicate if the endpoint is setup or
> > not. It is set or cleared in vhost_scsi_set_endpoint() or
> > vhost_scsi_clear_endpoint() under the vs->dev.mutex lock. However, when
> > we check it in vhost_scsi_handle_vq(), we ignored the lock.
> >
> > Instead of using the vs->vs_endpoint and the vs->dev.mutex lock to
> > indicate the status of the endpoint, we use per virtqueue
> > vq->private_data to indicate it. In this way, we can only take the
> > vq->mutex lock which is per queue and make the concurrent multiqueue
> > process having less lock contention. Further, in the read side of
> > vq->private_data, we can even do not take only lock if it is accessed in
> > the vhost worker thread, because it is protected by "vhost rcu".
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Asias He <asias@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.c
> > index 5e3d4487..0524267 100644
> > --- a/drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.c
> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/tcm_vhost.c
> > @@ -67,7 +67,6 @@ struct vhost_scsi {
> > /* Protected by vhost_scsi->dev.mutex */
> > struct tcm_vhost_tpg *vs_tpg[VHOST_SCSI_MAX_TARGET];
> > char vs_vhost_wwpn[TRANSPORT_IQN_LEN];
> > - bool vs_endpoint;
> >
> > struct vhost_dev dev;
> > struct vhost_virtqueue vqs[VHOST_SCSI_MAX_VQ];
> > @@ -91,6 +90,24 @@ static int iov_num_pages(struct iovec *iov)
> > ((unsigned long)iov->iov_base & PAGE_MASK)) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > }
> >
> > +static bool tcm_vhost_check_endpoint(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
> > +{
> > + bool ret = false;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * We can handle the vq only after the endpoint is setup by calling the
> > + * VHOST_SCSI_SET_ENDPOINT ioctl.
> > + *
> > + * TODO: Check that we are running from vhost_worker which acts
> > + * as read-side critical section for vhost kind of RCU.
> > + * See the comments in struct vhost_virtqueue in drivers/vhost/vhost.h
> > + */
> > + if (rcu_dereference_check(vq->private_data, 1))
> > + ret = true;
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > static int tcm_vhost_check_true(struct se_portal_group *se_tpg)
> > {
> > return 1;
> > @@ -581,8 +598,7 @@ static void vhost_scsi_handle_vq(struct vhost_scsi *vs,
> > int head, ret;
> > u8 target;
> >
> > - /* Must use ioctl VHOST_SCSI_SET_ENDPOINT */
> > - if (unlikely(!vs->vs_endpoint))
> > + if (!tcm_vhost_check_endpoint(vq))
> > return;
> >
>
> I would just move the check to under vq mutex,
> and avoid rcu completely. In vhost-net we are using
> private data outside lock so we can't do this,
> no such issue here.
Are you talking about:
handle_tx:
/* TODO: check that we are running from vhost_worker? */
sock = rcu_dereference_check(vq->private_data, 1);
if (!sock)
return;
wmem = atomic_read(&sock->sk->sk_wmem_alloc);
if (wmem >= sock->sk->sk_sndbuf) {
mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
tx_poll_start(net, sock);
mutex_unlock(&vq->mutex);
return;
}
mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
Why not do the atomic_read and tx_poll_start under the vq->mutex, and thus do
the check under the lock as well.
handle_rx:
mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
/* TODO: check that we are running from vhost_worker? */
struct socket *sock = rcu_dereference_check(vq->private_data, 1);
if (!sock)
return;
mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
Can't we can do the check under the vq->mutex here?
The rcu is still there but it makes the code easier to read. IMO, If we want to
use rcu, use it explicitly and avoid the vhost rcu completely.
> > mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
> > @@ -829,11 +845,12 @@ static int vhost_scsi_set_endpoint(
> > sizeof(vs->vs_vhost_wwpn));
> > for (i = 0; i < VHOST_SCSI_MAX_VQ; i++) {
> > vq = &vs->vqs[i];
> > + /* Flushing the vhost_work acts as synchronize_rcu */
> > mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
> > + rcu_assign_pointer(vq->private_data, vs);
> > vhost_init_used(vq);
> > mutex_unlock(&vq->mutex);
> > }
> > - vs->vs_endpoint = true;
> > ret = 0;
> > } else {
> > ret = -EEXIST;
>
>
> There's also some weird smp_mb__after_atomic_inc() with no
> atomic in sight just above ... Nicholas what was the point there?
>
>
> > @@ -849,6 +866,8 @@ static int vhost_scsi_clear_endpoint(
> > {
> > struct tcm_vhost_tport *tv_tport;
> > struct tcm_vhost_tpg *tv_tpg;
> > + struct vhost_virtqueue *vq;
> > + bool match = false;
> > int index, ret, i;
> > u8 target;
> >
> > @@ -884,9 +903,18 @@ static int vhost_scsi_clear_endpoint(
> > }
> > tv_tpg->tv_tpg_vhost_count--;
> > vs->vs_tpg[target] = NULL;
> > - vs->vs_endpoint = false;
> > + match = true;
> > mutex_unlock(&tv_tpg->tv_tpg_mutex);
> > }
> > + if (match) {
> > + for (i = 0; i < VHOST_SCSI_MAX_VQ; i++) {
> > + vq = &vs->vqs[i];
> > + /* Flushing the vhost_work acts as synchronize_rcu */
> > + mutex_lock(&vq->mutex);
> > + rcu_assign_pointer(vq->private_data, NULL);
> > + mutex_unlock(&vq->mutex);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> I'm trying to understand what's going on here.
> Does vhost_scsi only have a single target?
> Because the moment you clear one target you
> also set private_data to NULL ...
vhost_scsi supports multi target. Currently, We can not disable specific target
under the wwpn. When we clear or set the endpoint, we disable or enable all the
targets under the wwpn.
>
> > mutex_unlock(&vs->dev.mutex);
> > return 0;
> >
> > --
> > 1.8.1.4
--
Asias
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
