Linux Virtualization - Aug 2018 - [PATCH net-next v7 3/4] net: vhost: factor out busy polling logic to vhost_net_busy_poll()

On 2018?08?01? 17:52, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
>>> +
>>> +             cpu_relax();
>>> +     }
>>> +
>>> +     preempt_enable();
>>> +
>>> +     if (!rx)
>>> +             vhost_net_enable_vq(net, vq);
>> No need to enable rx virtqueue, if we are sure handle_rx() will be
>> called soon.
> If we disable rx virtqueue in handle_tx and don't send packets from
> guest anymore(handle_tx is not called), so we can wake up for sock rx.
> so the network is broken.
Not sure I understand here. I mean is we schedule work for handle_rx(), 
there's no need to enable it since handle_rx() will do this for us.

Thanks

On 2018/08/02 17:18, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 2018?08?01? 17:52, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
>>> +static void vhost_net_busy_poll_check(struct vhost_net *net,
>>> +                                   struct vhost_virtqueue *rvq,
>>> +                                   struct vhost_virtqueue *tvq,
>>> +                                   bool rx)
>>> +{
>>> +     struct socket *sock = rvq->private_data;
>>> +
>>> +     if (rx)
>>> +             vhost_net_busy_poll_try_queue(net, tvq);
>>> +     else if (sock && sk_has_rx_data(sock->sk))
>>> +             vhost_net_busy_poll_try_queue(net, rvq);
>>> +     else {
>>> +             /* On tx here, sock has no rx data, so we
>>> +              * will wait for sock wakeup for rx, and
>>> +              * vhost_enable_notify() is not needed. */
>>
>> A possible case is we do have rx data but guest does not refill the rx
>> queue. In this case we may lose notifications from guest.
> Yes, should consider this case. thanks.
I'm a bit confused. Isn't this covered by the previous
"else if (sock && sk_has_rx_data(...))" block?
>>>> +
>>>> +???????????? cpu_relax();
>>>> +???? }
>>>> +
>>>> +???? preempt_enable();
>>>> +
>>>> +???? if (!rx)
>>>> +???????????? vhost_net_enable_vq(net, vq);
>>> No need to enable rx virtqueue, if we are sure handle_rx() will be
>>> called soon.
>> If we disable rx virtqueue in handle_tx and don't send packets from
>> guest anymore(handle_tx is not called), so we can wake up for sock rx.
>> so the network is broken.
> 
> Not sure I understand here. I mean is we schedule work for handle_rx(),
> there's no need to enable it since handle_rx() will do this for us.
Looks like in the last "else" block in vhost_net_busy_poll_check() we
need to enable vq since in that case we have no rx data and handle_rx()
is not scheduled.

-- 
Toshiaki Makita

On 2018?08?02? 16:41, Toshiaki Makita wrote:
> On 2018/08/02 17:18, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2018?08?01? 17:52, Tonghao Zhang wrote:
>>>> +static void vhost_net_busy_poll_check(struct vhost_net *net,
>>>> +                                   struct vhost_virtqueue
*rvq,
>>>> +                                   struct vhost_virtqueue
*tvq,
>>>> +                                   bool rx)
>>>> +{
>>>> +     struct socket *sock = rvq->private_data;
>>>> +
>>>> +     if (rx)
>>>> +             vhost_net_busy_poll_try_queue(net, tvq);
>>>> +     else if (sock && sk_has_rx_data(sock->sk))
>>>> +             vhost_net_busy_poll_try_queue(net, rvq);
>>>> +     else {
>>>> +             /* On tx here, sock has no rx data, so we
>>>> +              * will wait for sock wakeup for rx, and
>>>> +              * vhost_enable_notify() is not needed. */
>>> A possible case is we do have rx data but guest does not refill the
rx
>>> queue. In this case we may lose notifications from guest.
>> Yes, should consider this case. thanks.
> I'm a bit confused. Isn't this covered by the previous
> "else if (sock && sk_has_rx_data(...))" block?
The problem is it does nothing if vhost_vq_avail_empty() is true and 
vhost_enble_notify() is false.
>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +???????????? cpu_relax();
>>>>> +???? }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +???? preempt_enable();
>>>>> +
>>>>> +???? if (!rx)
>>>>> +???????????? vhost_net_enable_vq(net, vq);
>>>> No need to enable rx virtqueue, if we are sure handle_rx() will
be
>>>> called soon.
>>> If we disable rx virtqueue in handle_tx and don't send packets
from
>>> guest anymore(handle_tx is not called), so we can wake up for sock
rx.
>>> so the network is broken.
>> Not sure I understand here. I mean is we schedule work for handle_rx(),
>> there's no need to enable it since handle_rx() will do this for us.
> Looks like in the last "else" block in
vhost_net_busy_poll_check() we
> need to enable vq since in that case we have no rx data and handle_rx()
> is not scheduled.
>
Yes.

Thanks