On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 02:13:18PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 1:58 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 10:16:00AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > @@ -2885,6 +2886,25 @@ static void virtnet_cancel_dim(struct virtnet_info *vi, struct dim *dim)
> > > > > net_dim_work_cancel(dim);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static void virtnet_update_settings(struct virtnet_info *vi)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + u32 speed;
> > > > > + u8 duplex;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_SPEED_DUPLEX))
> > > > > + return;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + virtio_cread_le(vi->vdev, struct virtio_net_config, speed, &speed);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (ethtool_validate_speed(speed))
> > > > > + vi->speed = speed;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + virtio_cread_le(vi->vdev, struct virtio_net_config, duplex, &duplex);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (ethtool_validate_duplex(duplex))
> > > > > + vi->duplex = duplex;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > I already commented on this approach. This is now invoked on each open,
> > > > lots of extra VM exits. No bueno, people are working hard to keep setup
> > > > overhead under control. Handle this in the config change interrupt -
> > > > your new infrastructure is perfect for this.
> > >
> > > No, in this version it doesn't. Config space read only happens if
> > > there's a pending config interrupt during ndo_open:
> > >
> > > + if (virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS)) {
> > > + if (vi->status & VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP)
> > > + netif_carrier_on(vi->dev);
> > > + virtio_config_driver_enable(vi->vdev);
> > > + } else {
> > > + vi->status = VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP;
> > > + netif_carrier_on(dev);
> > > + virtnet_update_settings(vi);
> > > + }
> >
> > Sorry for being unclear, I was referring to !VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS.
> > I do not see why do we need to bother re-reading settings in this case at all,
> > status is not there, nothing much changes.
>
> Ok, let me remove it from the next version.
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > static int virtnet_open(struct net_device *dev)
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct virtnet_info *vi = netdev_priv(dev);
> > > > > @@ -2903,6 +2923,16 @@ static int virtnet_open(struct net_device *dev)
> > > > > goto err_enable_qp;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > + if (virtio_has_feature(vi->vdev, VIRTIO_NET_F_STATUS)) {
> > > > > + if (vi->status & VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP)
> > > > > + netif_carrier_on(vi->dev);
> > > > > + virtio_config_driver_enable(vi->vdev);
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > > + vi->status = VIRTIO_NET_S_LINK_UP;
> > > > > + netif_carrier_on(dev);
> > > > > + virtnet_update_settings(vi);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > err_enable_qp:
> > > > > @@ -3381,12 +3411,18 @@ static int virtnet_close(struct net_device *dev)
> > > > > disable_delayed_refill(vi);
> > > > > /* Make sure refill_work doesn't re-enable napi! */
> > > > > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&vi->refill);
> > > > > + /* Make sure config notification doesn't schedule config work */
> > > >
> > > > it's clear what this does even without a comment.
> > > > what you should comment on, and do not, is *why*.
> > >
> > > Well, it just follows the existing style, for example the above said
> > >
> > > "/* Make sure refill_work doesn't re-enable napi! */"
> >
> > only at the grammar level.
> > you don't see the difference?
> >
> > /* Make sure refill_work doesn't re-enable napi! */
> > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&vi->refill);
> >
> > it explains why we cancel: to avoid re-enabling napi.
> >
> > why do you cancel config callback and work?
> > comment should say that.
>
> Something like "Prevent the config change callback from changing
> carrier after close"?
sounds good.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > + virtio_config_driver_disable(vi->vdev);
> > > > > + /* Make sure status updating is cancelled */
> > > >
> > > > same
> > > >
> > > > also what "status updating"? confuses more than this clarifies.
> > >
> > > Does "Make sure the config changed work is cancelled" sounds better?
> >
> > no, this just repeats what code does.
> > explain why you cancel it.
>
> Does something like "Make sure carrier changes have been done by the
> config change callback" works?
>
> Thanks
I don't understand what this means.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > MST
> >
