On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 11:43:08AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 4:10 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 04:04:13PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 3:07 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 07:53:08PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 2:34 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 在 2022/12/27 17:38, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道: > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 05:12:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > >> 在 2022/12/27 15:33, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道: > > > > > > >>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 12:30:35PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > > >>>>> But device is still going and will later use the buffers. > > > > > > >>>>> > > > > > > >>>>> Same for timeout really. > > > > > > >>>> Avoiding infinite wait/poll is one of the goals, another is to sleep. > > > > > > >>>> If we think the timeout is hard, we can start from the wait. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Thanks > > > > > > >>> If the goal is to avoid disrupting traffic while CVQ is in use, > > > > > > >>> that sounds more reasonable. E.g. someone is turning on promisc, > > > > > > >>> a spike in CPU usage might be unwelcome. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Yes, this would be more obvious is UP is used. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> things we should be careful to address then: > > > > > > >>> 1- debugging. Currently it's easy to see a warning if CPU is stuck > > > > > > >>> in a loop for a while, and we also get a backtrace. > > > > > > >>> E.g. with this - how do we know who has the RTNL? > > > > > > >>> We need to integrate with kernel/watchdog.c for good results > > > > > > >>> and to make sure policy is consistent. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> That's fine, will consider this. > > > > > > > > > > So after some investigation, it seems the watchdog.c doesn't help. The > > > > > only export helper is touch_softlockup_watchdog() which tries to avoid > > > > > triggering the lockups warning for the known slow path. > > > > > > > > I never said you can just use existing exporting APIs. You'll have to > > > > write new ones :) > > > > > > Ok, I thought you wanted to trigger similar warnings as a watchdog. > > > > > > Btw, I wonder what kind of logic you want here. If we switch to using > > > sleep, there won't be soft lockup anymore. A simple wait + timeout + > > > warning seems sufficient? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > I'd like to avoid need to teach users new APIs. So watchdog setup to apply > > to this driver. The warning can be different. > > Right, so it looks to me the only possible setup is the > watchdog_thres. I plan to trigger the warning every watchdog_thres * 2 > second (as softlockup did). > > And I think it would still make sense to fail, we can start with a > very long timeout like 1 minutes and break the device. Does this make > sense? > > Thanks I'd say we need to make this manageable then. Can't we do it normally e.g. react to an interrupt to return to userspace? > > > > > > > > > > > > > And before the patch, we end up with a real infinite loop which could > > > > > be caught by RCU stall detector which is not the case of the sleep. > > > > > What we can do is probably do a periodic netdev_err(). > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > Only with a bad device. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >>> 2- overhead. In a very common scenario when device is in hypervisor, > > > > > > >>> programming timers etc has a very high overhead, at bootup > > > > > > >>> lots of CVQ commands are run and slowing boot down is not nice. > > > > > > >>> let's poll for a bit before waiting? > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Then we go back to the question of choosing a good timeout for poll. And > > > > > > >> poll seems problematic in the case of UP, scheduler might not have the > > > > > > >> chance to run. > > > > > > > Poll just a bit :) Seriously I don't know, but at least check once > > > > > > > after kick. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think it is what the current code did where the condition will be > > > > > > check before trying to sleep in the wait_event(). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> 3- suprise removal. need to wake up thread in some way. what about > > > > > > >>> other cases of device breakage - is there a chance this > > > > > > >>> introduces new bugs around that? at least enumerate them please. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The current code did: > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> 1) check for vq->broken > > > > > > >> 2) wakeup during BAD_RING() > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> So we won't end up with a never woke up process which should be fine. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW BAD_RING on removal will trigger dev_err. Not sure that is a good > > > > > > > idea - can cause crashes if kernel panics on error. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it's better to use __virtqueue_break() instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > But consider we will start from a wait first, I will limit the changes > > > > > > in virtio-net without bothering virtio core. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
