On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:52 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:03:39AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>
> [..]
> > > static void virtio_fs_hiprio_dispatch_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > @@ -502,6 +522,7 @@ static int virtio_fs_setup_vqs(struct virtio_device *vdev,
> > > names[VQ_HIPRIO] = fs->vqs[VQ_HIPRIO].name;
> > > INIT_WORK(&fs->vqs[VQ_HIPRIO].done_work, virtio_fs_hiprio_done_work);
> > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fs->vqs[VQ_HIPRIO].queued_reqs);
> > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fs->vqs[VQ_HIPRIO].end_reqs);
> > > INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&fs->vqs[VQ_HIPRIO].dispatch_work,
> > > virtio_fs_hiprio_dispatch_work);
> > > spin_lock_init(&fs->vqs[VQ_HIPRIO].lock);
> > > @@ -511,8 +532,9 @@ static int virtio_fs_setup_vqs(struct virtio_device *vdev,
> > > spin_lock_init(&fs->vqs[i].lock);
> > > INIT_WORK(&fs->vqs[i].done_work, virtio_fs_requests_done_work);
> > > INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&fs->vqs[i].dispatch_work,
> > > - virtio_fs_dummy_dispatch_work);
> > > + virtio_fs_request_dispatch_work);
> > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fs->vqs[i].queued_reqs);
> > > + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fs->vqs[i].end_reqs);
> > > snprintf(fs->vqs[i].name, sizeof(fs->vqs[i].name),
> > > "requests.%u", i - VQ_REQUEST);
> > > callbacks[i] = virtio_fs_vq_done;
> > > @@ -918,6 +940,7 @@ __releases(fiq->lock)
> > > struct fuse_conn *fc;
> > > struct fuse_req *req;
> > > struct fuse_pqueue *fpq;
> > > + struct virtio_fs_vq *fsvq;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > WARN_ON(list_empty(&fiq->pending));
> > > @@ -951,7 +974,8 @@ __releases(fiq->lock)
> > > smp_mb__after_atomic();
> > >
> > > retry:
> > > - ret = virtio_fs_enqueue_req(&fs->vqs[queue_id], req);
> > > + fsvq = &fs->vqs[queue_id];
> > > + ret = virtio_fs_enqueue_req(fsvq, req);
> > > if (ret < 0) {
> > > if (ret == -ENOMEM || ret == -ENOSPC) {
> > > /* Virtqueue full. Retry submission */
> > > @@ -965,7 +989,13 @@ __releases(fiq->lock)
> > > clear_bit(FR_SENT, &req->flags);
> > > list_del_init(&req->list);
> > > spin_unlock(&fpq->lock);
> > > - fuse_request_end(fc, req);
> > > +
> > > + /* Can't end request in submission context. Use a worker */
> > > + spin_lock(&fsvq->lock);
> > > + list_add_tail(&req->list, &fsvq->end_reqs);
> > > + schedule_delayed_work(&fsvq->dispatch_work,
> > > + msecs_to_jiffies(1));
> >
> > What's the reason to delay by one msec? If this is purely for
> > deadlock avoidance, then a zero delay would work better, no?
>
> Hi Miklos,
>
> I have no good reason to do that. Will change it to zero delay.
Okay, fixed and pushed out to fuse.git#for-next.
Thanks,
Miklos
