On 2018/08/03 12:24, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 11:07 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 2018年08月03日 10:51, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:23 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 2018年08月02日 16:41, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
>>>>> On 2018/08/02 17:18, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018年08月01日 17:52, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
>>>>>>>> +static void vhost_net_busy_poll_check(struct vhost_net *net,
>>>>>>>> + struct vhost_virtqueue *rvq,
>>>>>>>> + struct vhost_virtqueue *tvq,
>>>>>>>> + bool rx)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> + struct socket *sock = rvq->private_data;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> + if (rx)
>>>>>>>> + vhost_net_busy_poll_try_queue(net, tvq);
>>>>>>>> + else if (sock && sk_has_rx_data(sock->sk))
>>>>>>>> + vhost_net_busy_poll_try_queue(net, rvq);
>>>>>>>> + else {
>>>>>>>> + /* On tx here, sock has no rx data, so we
>>>>>>>> + * will wait for sock wakeup for rx, and
>>>>>>>> + * vhost_enable_notify() is not needed. */
>>>>>>> A possible case is we do have rx data but guest does not refill the rx
>>>>>>> queue. In this case we may lose notifications from guest.
>>>>>> Yes, should consider this case. thanks.
>>>>> I'm a bit confused. Isn't this covered by the previous
>>>>> "else if (sock && sk_has_rx_data(...))" block?
>>>> The problem is it does nothing if vhost_vq_avail_empty() is true and
>>>> vhost_enble_notify() is false.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + cpu_relax();
>>>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + preempt_enable();
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> + if (!rx)
>>>>>>>>> + vhost_net_enable_vq(net, vq);
>>>>>>>> No need to enable rx virtqueue, if we are sure handle_rx() will be
>>>>>>>> called soon.
>>>>>>> If we disable rx virtqueue in handle_tx and don't send packets from
>>>>>>> guest anymore(handle_tx is not called), so we can wake up for sock rx.
>>>>>>> so the network is broken.
>>>>>> Not sure I understand here. I mean is we schedule work for handle_rx(),
>>>>>> there's no need to enable it since handle_rx() will do this for us.
>>>>> Looks like in the last "else" block in vhost_net_busy_poll_check() we
>>>>> need to enable vq since in that case we have no rx data and handle_rx()
>>>>> is not scheduled.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>> So we will use the vhost_has_work() to check whether or not the
>>> handle_rx is scheduled ?
>>> If we use the vhost_has_work(), the work in the dev work_list may be
>>> rx work, or tx work, right ?
>>
>> Yes. We can add a boolean to record whether or not we've called
>> vhost_poll_queue() for rvq. And avoid calling vhost_net_enable_vq() if
>> it was true.
> so, the commit be294a51a "vhost_net: Avoid rx queue wake-ups during busypoll"
> may not consider the case: work is tx work in the dev work list.
Not sure what you are concerned but what I can say is that we need to
poll rx work if vhost_has_work() detects tx work in
vhost_net_rx_peek_head_len() since rx busypoll exits prematurely in that
case.
>> So here's the needed changes:
>>
>> 1) Split the wakeup disabling to another patch
>> 2) Squash the vhost_net_busy_poll_try_queue() and
>> vhost_net_busy_poll_check() into vhost_net_busy_poll() and reduce
>> duplicated checks.
>> 3) If possible, rename the boolean rx in vhost_net_busy_poll() to
>> poll_rx, this makes code more readable.
> OK
>> Thanks
>>
>>>> Thanks
>>
>
>
--
Toshiaki Makita
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
