Virtualization - Oct 2022 - [PATCH net] virtio-net: add cond_resched() to the command waiting loop

On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:21:45AM +0800, Jason Wang
wrote:
> 
> ? 2022/9/7 15:46, Michael S. Tsirkin ??:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 09:07:20AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 10:09 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 6:56 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni at
redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 15:49 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 3:15 PM Michael S. Tsirkin
<mst at redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 12:53:41PM +0800,
Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > > Adding cond_resched() to the command
waiting loop for a better
> > > > > > > > co-operation with the scheduler. This
allows to give CPU a breath to
> > > > > > > > run other task(workqueue) instead of
busy looping when preemption is
> > > > > > > > not allowed.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > What's more important. This is a
must for some vDPA parent to work
> > > > > > > > since control virtqueue is emulated via
a workqueue for those parents.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Fixes: bda324fd037a ("vdpasim:
control virtqueue support")
> > > > > > > That's a weird commit to fix. so it fixes
the simulator?
> > > > > > Yes, since the simulator is using a workqueue to
handle control virtueue.
> > > > > Uhmm... touching a driver for a simulator's sake
looks a little weird.
> > > > Simulator is not the only one that is using a workqueue (but
should be
> > > > the first).
> > > > 
> > > > I can see  that the mlx5 vDPA driver is using a workqueue as
well (see
> > > > mlx5_vdpa_kick_vq()).
> > > > 
> > > > And in the case of VDUSE, it needs to wait for the response
from the
> > > > userspace, this means cond_resched() is probably a must for
the case
> > > > like UP.
> > > > 
> > > > > Additionally, if the bug is vdpasim, I think it's
better to try to
> > > > > solve it there, if possible.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Looking at vdpasim_net_work() and vdpasim_blk_work() it
looks like
> > > > > neither needs a process context, so perhaps you could
rework it to run
> > > > > the work_fn() directly from vdpasim_kick_vq(), at least
for the control
> > > > > virtqueue?
> > > > It's possible (but require some rework on the simulator
core). But
> > > > considering we have other similar use cases, it looks better
to solve
> > > > it in the virtio-net driver.
> > > I see.
> > > 
> > > > Additionally, this may have better behaviour when using for
the buggy
> > > > hardware (e.g the control virtqueue takes too long to
respond). We may
> > > > consider switching to use interrupt/sleep in the future (but
not
> > > > suitable for -net).
> > > Agreed. Possibly a timeout could be useful, too.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > 
> > > Paolo
> > 
> > Hmm timeouts are kind of arbitrary.
> > regular drivers basically derive them from hardware
> > behaviour but with a generic driver like virtio it's harder.
> > I guess we could add timeout as a config field, have
> > device make a promise to the driver.
> > 
> > Making the wait interruptible seems more reasonable.
> 
> 
> Yes, but I think we still need this patch for -net and -stable.
> 
> Thanks
I was referring to Paolo's idea of having a timeout.

-- 
MST

? 2022/9/8 13:19, Michael S. Tsirkin ??:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:21:45AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> ? 2022/9/7 15:46, Michael S. Tsirkin ??:
>>> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 09:07:20AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 10:09 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 6:56 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni at
redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 15:49 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 3:15 PM Michael S. Tsirkin
<mst at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 12:53:41PM +0800, Jason
Wang wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Adding cond_resched() to the command
waiting loop for a better
>>>>>>>>> co-operation with the scheduler. This
allows to give CPU a breath to
>>>>>>>>> run other task(workqueue) instead of busy
looping when preemption is
>>>>>>>>> not allowed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's more important. This is a must
for some vDPA parent to work
>>>>>>>>> since control virtqueue is emulated via a
workqueue for those parents.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Fixes: bda324fd037a ("vdpasim: control
virtqueue support")
>>>>>>>> That's a weird commit to fix. so it fixes
the simulator?
>>>>>>> Yes, since the simulator is using a workqueue to
handle control virtueue.
>>>>>> Uhmm... touching a driver for a simulator's sake
looks a little weird.
>>>>> Simulator is not the only one that is using a workqueue
(but should be
>>>>> the first).
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see  that the mlx5 vDPA driver is using a workqueue
as well (see
>>>>> mlx5_vdpa_kick_vq()).
>>>>>
>>>>> And in the case of VDUSE, it needs to wait for the response
from the
>>>>> userspace, this means cond_resched() is probably a must for
the case
>>>>> like UP.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Additionally, if the bug is vdpasim, I think it's
better to try to
>>>>>> solve it there, if possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at vdpasim_net_work() and vdpasim_blk_work() it
looks like
>>>>>> neither needs a process context, so perhaps you could
rework it to run
>>>>>> the work_fn() directly from vdpasim_kick_vq(), at least
for the control
>>>>>> virtqueue?
>>>>> It's possible (but require some rework on the simulator
core). But
>>>>> considering we have other similar use cases, it looks
better to solve
>>>>> it in the virtio-net driver.
>>>> I see.
>>>>
>>>>> Additionally, this may have better behaviour when using for
the buggy
>>>>> hardware (e.g the control virtqueue takes too long to
respond). We may
>>>>> consider switching to use interrupt/sleep in the future
(but not
>>>>> suitable for -net).
>>>> Agreed. Possibly a timeout could be useful, too.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Paolo
>>> Hmm timeouts are kind of arbitrary.
>>> regular drivers basically derive them from hardware
>>> behaviour but with a generic driver like virtio it's harder.
>>> I guess we could add timeout as a config field, have
>>> device make a promise to the driver.
>>>
>>> Making the wait interruptible seems more reasonable.
>>
>> Yes, but I think we still need this patch for -net and -stable.
>>
>> Thanks
> I was referring to Paolo's idea of having a timeout.

Ok, I think we're fine with this patch. Any chance to merge this or do I 
need to resend?

Thanks

>