On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 02:04:46PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 09:30:20 -0800 Joe Damato wrote:
> > > > static void virtnet_napi_enable_lock(struct virtqueue *vq,
> > > > - struct napi_struct *napi)
> > > > + struct napi_struct *napi,
> > > > + bool need_rtnl)
> > > > {
> > > > + struct virtnet_info *vi = vq->vdev->priv;
> > > > + int q = vq2rxq(vq);
> > > > +
> > > > virtnet_napi_do_enable(vq, napi);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (q < vi->curr_queue_pairs) {
> > > > + if (need_rtnl)
> > > > + rtnl_lock();
> > >
> > > Can we tweak the caller to call rtnl_lock() instead to avoid this trick?
> >
> > The major problem is that if the caller calls rtnl_lock() before
> > calling virtnet_napi_enable_lock, then virtnet_napi_do_enable (and
> > thus napi_enable) happen under the lock.
> >
> > Jakub mentioned in a recent change [1] that napi_enable may soon
> > need to sleep.
> >
> > Given the above constraints, the only way to avoid the "need_rtnl"
> > would be to refactor the code much more, placing calls (or wrappers)
> > to netif_queue_set_napi in many locations.
> >
> > IMHO: This implementation seemed cleaner than putting calls to
> > netif_queue_set_napi throughout the driver.
> >
> > Please let me know how you'd like to proceed on this.
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250111024742.3680902-1-kuba@xxxxxxxxxx/
>
> I'm going to make netif_queue_set_napi() take netdev->lock, and remove
> the rtnl_lock requirement ~this week. If we need conditional locking
> perhaps we're better off waiting?
That seems reasonable to me and I can wait.
Please CC me on that series so I can take a look and I'll adjust the
v2 of this series to avoid the locking once your series is merged.
Thanks!
