On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:51 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:08:04 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:
> > +static void enable_refill_work(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > +{
> > + spin_lock(&vi->refill_lock);
> > + vi->refill_work_enabled = true;
> > + spin_unlock(&vi->refill_lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void disable_refill_work(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > +{
> > + spin_lock(&vi->refill_lock);
> > + vi->refill_work_enabled = false;
> > + spin_unlock(&vi->refill_lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > static void virtqueue_napi_schedule(struct napi_struct *napi,
> > struct virtqueue *vq)
> > {
> > @@ -1527,8 +1547,12 @@ static int virtnet_receive(struct receive_queue *rq, int budget,
> > }
> >
> > if (rq->vq->num_free > min((unsigned int)budget, virtqueue_get_vring_size(rq->vq)) / 2) {
> > - if (!try_fill_recv(vi, rq, GFP_ATOMIC))
> > - schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, 0);
> > + if (!try_fill_recv(vi, rq, GFP_ATOMIC)) {
> > + spin_lock(&vi->refill_lock);
> > + if (vi->refill_work_enabled)
> > + schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, 0);
> > + spin_unlock(&vi->refill_lock);
>
> Are you sure you can use the basic spin_lock() flavor in all cases?
> Isn't the disable/enable called from a different context than this
> thing here?
This function will only be called in bh so it's safe.
>
> The entire delayed work construct seems a little risky because the work
> may go to sleep after disabling napi, causing large latency spikes.
Yes, but it only happens on OOM.
> I guess you must have a good reason no to simply reschedule the NAPI
> and keep retrying with GFP_ATOMIC...
Less pressure on the memory allocator on OOM probably, but it looks
like an independent issue that might be optimized in the future.
>
> Please add the target tree name to the subject.
Ok
Thanks
>
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
