similar to: [PATCH v4 15/16] virtio-fs: add virtiofs filesystem

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 04:19:31PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> > > Michael, > > Here's a v6 of the virtiofs code (fuse.git#virtiofs-v6). I think we've > addressed all your comments. > > Would you mind giving it another look, and if you're satisfied acking this > patch? > > Thanks, > Miklos

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:55:49AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: [..] > What's with all of the TODOs? Some of these are really scary, > looks like they need to be figured out before this is merged. Hi Michael, One of the issue I noticed is races w.r.t device removal and super block initialization. I am about to post a set of patches which take care of these races and also get rid of

Hi, We have couple of places which can result in deadlock. This patch series fixes these. We can be called with fc->bg_lock (for background requests) while submitting a request. This leads to two constraints. - We can't end requests in submitter's context and call fuse_end_request() as it tries to take fc->bg_lock as well. So queue these requests on a list and use a worker to

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 03:15:15PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 09:55:49AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > [..] > > What's with all of the TODOs? Some of these are really scary, > > looks like they need to be figured out before this is merged. > > Hi Michael, > > One of the issue I noticed is races w.r.t device removal and super >

Hi, Michael Tsirkin pointed out issues w.r.t various locking related TODO items and races w.r.t device removal. In this first round of cleanups, I have taken care of most pressing issues. These patches apply on top of following. git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mszeredi/fuse.git#virtiofs-v4 I have tested these patches with mount/umount and device removal using qemu monitor. For

When the Virtio queue is full, a work item is scheduled to execute in 1ms that retries adding the request to the queue. This is a large amount of time on the scale on which a virtio-fs device can operate. When using a DPU this is around 40us baseline without going to a remote server (4k, QD=1). This patch queues requests when the Virtio queue is full, and when a completed request is taken off,

When the Virtio queue is full, a work item is scheduled to execute in 1ms that retries adding the request to the queue. This is a large amount of time on the scale on which a virtio-fs device can operate. When using a DPU this is around 40us baseline without going to a remote server (4k, QD=1). This patch queues requests when the Virtio queue is full, and when a completed request is taken off,

Hi Miklos, Here are few small cleanups for virtiofs for 5.5. I had received some comments from Michael Tsirkin on original virtiofs patches and these cleanups are result of these comments. Thanks Vivek Vivek Goyal (3): virtiofs: Use a common function to send forget virtiofs: Do not send forget request "struct list_head" element virtiofs: Use completions while waiting for queue

When device is going away, drain all pending requests. Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> --- fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c index 90e7b2f345e5..d5730a50b303 100644 --- a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c +++ b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c @@ -63,6

If virtqueue is full, we put forget requests on a list and these forgets are dispatched later using a worker. As of now we don't count these forgets in fsvq->in_flight variable. This means when queue is being drained, we have to have special logic to first drain these pending requests and then wait for fsvq->in_flight to go to zero. By counting pending forgets in fsvq->in_flight, we

Pass fsvq instead of vq as parameter to virtio_fs_enqueue_req(). We will retrieve vq from fsvq under spin lock. Later in the patch series we will retrieve vq only if fsvq is still connected other vq might have been cleaned up by device ->remove code and we will return error. Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> --- fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5

From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> [ Upstream commit bb737bbe48bea9854455cb61ea1dc06e92ce586c ] In virtiofs (unlike in regular fuse) processing of async replies is serialized. This can result in a deadlock in rare corner cases when there's a circular dependency between the completion of two or more async replies. Such a deadlock can be reproduced with xfstests:generic/503 if

From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> [ Upstream commit bb737bbe48bea9854455cb61ea1dc06e92ce586c ] In virtiofs (unlike in regular fuse) processing of async replies is serialized. This can result in a deadlock in rare corner cases when there's a circular dependency between the completion of two or more async replies. Such a deadlock can be reproduced with xfstests:generic/503 if

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 10:03:39AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: [..] > > static void virtio_fs_hiprio_dispatch_work(struct work_struct *work) > > @@ -502,6 +522,7 @@ static int virtio_fs_setup_vqs(struct virtio_device *vdev, > > names[VQ_HIPRIO] = fs->vqs[VQ_HIPRIO].name; > > INIT_WORK(&fs->vqs[VQ_HIPRIO].done_work, virtio_fs_hiprio_done_work);

While we wait for queue to finish draining, use completions instead of uslee_range(). This is better way of waiting for event. Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> --- fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c index 43224db8d9ed..b5ba83ef1914 100644

fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c:983:20: warning: variable fc set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] It is not used since commit 7ee1e2e631db ("virtiofs: No need to check fpq->connected state") Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing at huawei.com> --- fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c b/fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c index

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 04:49:39PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:34:15PM +0200, Peter-Jan Gootzen wrote: > > On 31/05/2023 21:18, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:10:32PM +0200, Peter-Jan Gootzen wrote: > > >> When the Virtio queue is full, a work item is scheduled > > >> to execute in 1ms that retries adding the

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:34:15PM +0200, Peter-Jan Gootzen wrote: > On 31/05/2023 21:18, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:10:32PM +0200, Peter-Jan Gootzen wrote: > >> When the Virtio queue is full, a work item is scheduled > >> to execute in 1ms that retries adding the request to the queue. > >> This is a large amount of time on the scale on

Currently we are duplicating logic to send forgets at two places. Consolidate the code by calling one helper function. This also uses virtqueue_add_outbuf() instead of virtqueue_add_sgs(). Former is simpler to call. Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> --- fs/fuse/virtio_fs.c | 150 +++++++++++++++++++------------------------- 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)

On 01/06/2023 16:08, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 04:49:39PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: >> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:34:15PM +0200, Peter-Jan Gootzen wrote: >>> On 31/05/2023 21:18, Vivek Goyal wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 07:10:32PM +0200, Peter-Jan Gootzen wrote: >>>>> When the Virtio queue is full, a work item is scheduled