On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 02:52:49PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 2:46 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 10:18:03PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin 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
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > So for sure, we can queue up the work and process it later.
> > The somewhat tricky part is limiting the memory consumption.
>
> And it needs to sync with rtnl somehow, e.g device unregistering which
> seems not easy.
>
> Thanks
since when does device unregister need to send cvq commands?
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > 2- still handle surprise removal correctly by waking in that case
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > 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
