On 2018/08/03 13:14, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 11:40 AM Toshiaki Makita
> <makita.toshiaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
> In the handle_rx, when we busy poll, the vhost_has_work() return true,
> because the tx but not rx work is in the dev work list.
> and it is the most case, because tx work may be added to dev work list
> anytime(not during busy poll) when guest kick the vhost-net.
> so it is not necessary to add it., right ?
I'm lost.
What is the part you think is not needed?
1. When there is a tx work we exit rx busypoll.
2. When we exit rx busypoll by tx work, we poll rx work (so that we can
continue rx busypoll later).
--
Toshiaki Makita
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
