On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 2:30 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 5:46 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 04:59:33PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > They really shouldn't - any NIC that takes forever to > > > > program will create issues in the networking stack. > > > > > > Unfortunately, it's not rare as the device/cvq could be implemented > > > via firmware or software. > > > > Currently that mean one either has sane firmware with a scheduler that > > can meet deadlines, or loses ability to report errors back. > > > > > > But if they do they can always set this flag too. > > > > > > This may have false negatives and may confuse the management. > > > > > > Maybe we can extend the networking core to allow some device specific > > > configurations to be done with device specific lock without rtnl. For > > > example, split the set_channels to > > > > > > pre_set_channels > > > set_channels > > > post_set_channels > > > > > > The device specific part could be done in pre and post without a rtnl lock? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Would the benefit be that errors can be reported to userspace then? > > Then maybe. I think you will have to show how this works for at least > > one card besides virtio. > > Even for virtio, this seems not easy, as e.g the > virtnet_send_command() and netif_set_real_num_tx_queues() need to > appear to be atomic to the networking core. > > I wonder if we can re-consider the way of a timeout here and choose a > sane value as a start. Michael, any more input on this? Thanks > > Thanks > > > > > > > -- > > MST > > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
