On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 02:52:05PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 4:18 AM Maxime Coquelin > <maxime.coquelin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 7/21/23 17:10, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:58:04PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 7/21/23 16:45, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:37:00PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On 7/20/23 23:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > >>>>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 01:26:20PM -0700, Shannon Nelson wrote: > > >>>>>> On 7/20/23 1:38 AM, Jason Wang wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Adding cond_resched() to the command waiting loop for a better > > >>>>>>> co-operation with the scheduler. This allows to give CPU a breath to > > >>>>>>> run other task(workqueue) instead of busy looping when preemption is > > >>>>>>> not allowed on a device whose CVQ might be slow. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> This still leaves hung processes, but at least it doesn't pin the CPU any > > >>>>>> more. Thanks. > > >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@xxxxxxx> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I'd like to see a full solution > > >>>>> 1- block until interrupt > > I remember in previous versions, you worried about the extra MSI > vector. (Maybe I was wrong). > > > >>>> > > >>>> Would it make sense to also have a timeout? > > >>>> And when timeout expires, set FAILED bit in device status? > > >>> > > >>> virtio spec does not set any limits on the timing of vq > > >>> processing. > > >> > > >> Indeed, but I thought the driver could decide it is too long for it. > > >> > > >> The issue is we keep waiting with rtnl locked, it can quickly make the > > >> system unusable. > > > > > > if this is a problem we should find a way not to keep rtnl > > > locked indefinitely. > > Any ideas on this direction? Simply dropping rtnl during the busy loop > will result in a lot of races. This seems to require non-trivial > changes in the networking core. > > > > > From the tests I have done, I think it is. With OVS, a reconfiguration > > is performed when the VDUSE device is added, and when a MLX5 device is > > in the same bridge, it ends up doing an ioctl() that tries to take the > > rtnl lock. In this configuration, it is not possible to kill OVS because > > it is stuck trying to acquire rtnl lock for mlx5 that is held by virtio- > > net. > > Yeah, basically, any RTNL users would be blocked forever. > > And the infinite loop has other side effects like it blocks the freezer to work. > > To summarize, there are three issues > > 1) busy polling > 2) breaks freezer > 3) hold RTNL during the loop > > Solving 3 may help somehow for 2 e.g some pm routine e.g wireguard or > even virtnet_restore() itself may try to hold the lock. Yep. So my feeling currently is, the only real fix is to actually queue up the work in software. It's mostly trivial to limit memory consumption, vid's is the only one where it would make sense to have more than 1 command of a given type outstanding. have a tree or a bitmap with vids to add/remove? > > > > > > > >>>>> 2- still handle surprise removal correctly by waking in that case > > This is basically what version 1 did? > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6026e801-6fda-fee9-a69b-d06a80368621@xxxxxxxxxx/t/ > > Thanks Yes - except the timeout part. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>> --- > > >>>>>>> drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 4 +++- > > >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > > >>>>>>> index 9f3b1d6ac33d..e7533f29b219 100644 > > >>>>>>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > > >>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c > > >>>>>>> @@ -2314,8 +2314,10 @@ static bool virtnet_send_command(struct virtnet_info *vi, u8 class, u8 cmd, > > >>>>>>> * into the hypervisor, so the request should be handled immediately. > > >>>>>>> */ > > >>>>>>> while (!virtqueue_get_buf(vi->cvq, &tmp) && > > >>>>>>> - !virtqueue_is_broken(vi->cvq)) > > >>>>>>> + !virtqueue_is_broken(vi->cvq)) { > > >>>>>>> + cond_resched(); > > >>>>>>> cpu_relax(); > > >>>>>>> + } > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> return vi->ctrl->status == VIRTIO_NET_OK; > > >>>>>>> } > > >>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>> 2.39.3 > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>>> Virtualization mailing list > > >>>>>>> Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >>>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization > > >>>>> > > >>> > > > > > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
