On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 01:45:35PM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 07:00:53AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 11:37:23AM +0100, Tobias Huschle wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:15:01AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 11:00:12AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Dec 12, 2023 at 12:54 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> > Apparently schedule is already called?
> >
>
> What about this:
>
> static int vhost_task_fn(void *data)
> {
> <...>
> did_work = vtsk->fn(vtsk->data); --> this calls vhost_worker if I'm not mistaken
> if (!did_work)
> schedule();
> <...>
> }
>
> static bool vhost_worker(void *data)
> {
> struct vhost_worker *worker = data;
> struct vhost_work *work, *work_next;
> struct llist_node *node;
>
> node = llist_del_all(&worker->work_list);
> if (node) {
> <...>
> llist_for_each_entry_safe(work, work_next, node, node) {
> <...>
> }
> }
>
> return !!node;
> }
>
> The llist_for_each_entry_safe does not actually change the node value, doesn't it?
>
> If it does not change it, !!node would return 1.
> Thereby skipping the schedule.
>
> This was changed recently with:
> f9010dbdce91 fork, vhost: Use CLONE_THREAD to fix freezer/ps regression
>
> It returned a hardcoded 0 before. The commit message explicitly mentions this
> change to make vhost_worker return 1 if it did something.
>
> Seems indeed like a nasty little side effect caused by EEVDF not scheduling
> the woken up kworker right away.
So we are actually making an effort to be nice.
Documentation/kernel-hacking/hacking.rst says:
If you're doing longer computations: first think userspace. If you
**really** want to do it in kernel you should regularly check if you need
to give up the CPU (remember there is cooperative multitasking per CPU).
Idiom::
cond_resched(); /* Will sleep */
and this is what vhost.c does.
At this point I'm not sure why it's appropriate to call schedule() as opposed to
cond_resched(). Ideas?
--
MST
