Virtualization - Dec 2022 - [PATCH 3/4] virtio_ring: introduce a per virtqueue waitqueue

On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 05:12:58PM +0800, Jason Wang
wrote:
> 
> ? 2022/12/27 15:33, Michael S. Tsirkin ??:
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 12:30:35PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > But device is still going and will later use the buffers.
> > > > 
> > > > Same for timeout really.
> > > Avoiding infinite wait/poll is one of the goals, another is to
sleep.
> > > If we think the timeout is hard, we can start from the wait.
> > > 
> > > Thanks
> > If the goal is to avoid disrupting traffic while CVQ is in use,
> > that sounds more reasonable. E.g. someone is turning on promisc,
> > a spike in CPU usage might be unwelcome.
> 
> 
> Yes, this would be more obvious is UP is used.
> 
> 
> > 
> > things we should be careful to address then:
> > 1- debugging. Currently it's easy to see a warning if CPU is stuck
> >     in a loop for a while, and we also get a backtrace.
> >     E.g. with this - how do we know who has the RTNL?
> >     We need to integrate with kernel/watchdog.c for good results
> >     and to make sure policy is consistent.
> 
> 
> That's fine, will consider this.
> 
> 
> > 2- overhead. In a very common scenario when device is in hypervisor,
> >     programming timers etc has a very high overhead, at bootup
> >     lots of CVQ commands are run and slowing boot down is not nice.
> >     let's poll for a bit before waiting?
> 
> 
> Then we go back to the question of choosing a good timeout for poll. And
> poll seems problematic in the case of UP, scheduler might not have the
> chance to run.
Poll just a bit :) Seriously I don't know, but at least check once
after kick.
> 
> > 3- suprise removal. need to wake up thread in some way. what about
> >     other cases of device breakage - is there a chance this
> >     introduces new bugs around that? at least enumerate them please.
> 
> 
> The current code did:
> 
> 1) check for vq->broken
> 2) wakeup during BAD_RING()
> 
> So we won't end up with a never woke up process which should be fine.
> 
> Thanks

BTW BAD_RING on removal will trigger dev_err. Not sure that is a good
idea - can cause crashes if kernel panics on error.
> 
> > 
> >

? 2022/12/27 17:38, Michael S. Tsirkin ??:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 05:12:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> ? 2022/12/27 15:33, Michael S. Tsirkin ??:
>>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 12:30:35PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>> But device is still going and will later use the buffers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same for timeout really.
>>>> Avoiding infinite wait/poll is one of the goals, another is to
sleep.
>>>> If we think the timeout is hard, we can start from the wait.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>> If the goal is to avoid disrupting traffic while CVQ is in use,
>>> that sounds more reasonable. E.g. someone is turning on promisc,
>>> a spike in CPU usage might be unwelcome.
>>
>> Yes, this would be more obvious is UP is used.
>>
>>
>>> things we should be careful to address then:
>>> 1- debugging. Currently it's easy to see a warning if CPU is
stuck
>>>      in a loop for a while, and we also get a backtrace.
>>>      E.g. with this - how do we know who has the RTNL?
>>>      We need to integrate with kernel/watchdog.c for good results
>>>      and to make sure policy is consistent.
>>
>> That's fine, will consider this.
>>
>>
>>> 2- overhead. In a very common scenario when device is in
hypervisor,
>>>      programming timers etc has a very high overhead, at bootup
>>>      lots of CVQ commands are run and slowing boot down is not
nice.
>>>      let's poll for a bit before waiting?
>>
>> Then we go back to the question of choosing a good timeout for poll.
And
>> poll seems problematic in the case of UP, scheduler might not have the
>> chance to run.
> Poll just a bit :) Seriously I don't know, but at least check once
> after kick.

I think it is what the current code did where the condition will be 
check before trying to sleep in the wait_event().

>
>>> 3- suprise removal. need to wake up thread in some way. what about
>>>      other cases of device breakage - is there a chance this
>>>      introduces new bugs around that? at least enumerate them
please.
>>
>> The current code did:
>>
>> 1) check for vq->broken
>> 2) wakeup during BAD_RING()
>>
>> So we won't end up with a never woke up process which should be
fine.
>>
>> Thanks
>
> BTW BAD_RING on removal will trigger dev_err. Not sure that is a good
> idea - can cause crashes if kernel panics on error.

Yes, it's better to use __virtqueue_break() instead.

But consider we will start from a wait first, I will limit the changes 
in virtio-net without bothering virtio core.

Thanks

>
>>>