Linux Virtualization - Aug 2018 - [net-next, v6, 6/7] net-sysfs: Add interface for Rx queue(s) map per Tx queue

On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 02:04:12PM -0700, Nambiar, Amritha
wrote:
> On 8/1/2018 5:11 PM, Andrei Vagin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 07:28:49PM -0700, Nambiar, Amritha wrote:
> >> With this patch series, I introduced static_key for XPS maps
> >> (xps_needed), so static_key_slow_inc() is used to switch branches.
The
> >> definition of static_key_slow_inc() has cpus_read_lock in place.
In the
> >> virtio_net driver, XPS queues are initialized after setting the
> >> queue:cpu affinity in virtnet_set_affinity() which is already
protected
> >> within cpus_read_lock. Hence, the warning here trying to acquire
> >> cpus_read_lock when it is already held.
> >>
> >> A quick fix for this would be to just extract
netif_set_xps_queue() out
> >> of the lock by simply wrapping it with another put/get_online_cpus
> >> (unlock right before and hold lock right after).
> > 
> > virtnet_set_affinity() is called from virtnet_cpu_online(), which is
> > called under cpus_read_lock too.
> > 
> > It looks like now we can't call netif_set_xps_queue() from cpu
hotplug
> > callbacks.
> > 
> > I can suggest a very straightforward fix for this problem. The patch
is
> > attached.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for looking into this. I was thinking of fixing this in the
> virtio_net driver by moving the XPS initialization (and have a new
> get_affinity utility) in the ndo_open (so it is together with other tx
> preparation) instead of probe. Your patch solves this in general for
> setting up cpu hotplug callbacks which is under cpus_read_lock.

I like this too. Could you repost in a standard way
(inline, with your signoff etc) so we can ack this for
net-next?
> >> But this may not a
> >> clean solution. It'd help if I can get suggestions on what
would be a
> >> clean option to fix this without extensively changing the code in
> >> virtio_net. Is it mandatory to protect the affinitization with
> >> read_lock? I don't see similar lock in other drivers while
setting the
> >> affinity. I understand this warning should go away, but isn't
it safe to
> >> have multiple readers.
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 09:27:07PM -0700, Amritha Nambiar
wrote: