similar to: virtio-fs: adding support for multi-queue

On 08/02/2023 11:43, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:33:33AM +0100, Peter-Jan Gootzen wrote: >> >> >> On 07/02/2023 22:57, Vivek Goyal wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 04:32:02PM -0500, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >>>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 02:53:58PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023 at 02:45:39PM

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,

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

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 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

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,

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 >

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:05:02AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > [Cc: virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" > <mst at redhat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com>] > > It'd be nice to have an ACK for this from the virtio maintainers. > > Thanks, > Miklos Can the patches themselves be posted to the relevant list(s)

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:05:02AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > [Cc: virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" > <mst at redhat.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang at redhat.com>] > > It'd be nice to have an ACK for this from the virtio maintainers. > > Thanks, > Miklos Can the patches themselves be posted to the relevant list(s)

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:07:52AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 04:31:38AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > [..] > > + /* TODO lock */ > > give me pause. > > > > Cleanup generally seems broken to me - what pauses the FS > > I am looking into device removal aspect of it now. Thinking of adding > a reference count to virtiofs

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:07:52AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 04:31:38AM -0400, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > [..] > > + /* TODO lock */ > > give me pause. > > > > Cleanup generally seems broken to me - what pauses the FS > > I am looking into device removal aspect of it now. Thinking of adding > a reference count to virtiofs

On Sun, Sep 08, 2019 at 07:53:55PM +0800, piaojun wrote: > > > On 2019/9/6 19:52, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:36 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:15:14AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > >>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:49 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote:

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

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

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

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 01:42:02PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> > > Add a basic file system module for virtio-fs. This does not yet contain > shared data support between host and guest or metadata coherency speedups. > However it is already significantly faster than virtio-9p. > > Design Overview > ===============

On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 01:42:02PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> > > Add a basic file system module for virtio-fs. This does not yet contain > shared data support between host and guest or metadata coherency speedups. > However it is already significantly faster than virtio-9p. > > Design Overview > ===============

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 01:52:41PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:36 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:15:14AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:49 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > >

On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 01:52:41PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:36 PM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 10:15:14AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 9:49 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal at redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > >