Re: [V2 PATCH 9/9] vhost: zerocopy: poll vq in zerocopy callback

From: Jason Wang
Date: Mon May 21 2012 - 01:22:53 EST


On 05/17/2012 03:08 AM, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 21:36 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 10:32:05AM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 18:14 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 08:10:27AM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 10:58 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
index 947f00d..7b75fdf 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
@@ -1604,6 +1604,7 @@ void vhost_zerocopy_callback(void
*arg)
struct vhost_ubuf_ref *ubufs = ubuf->arg;
struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = ubufs->vq;

+ vhost_poll_queue(&vq->poll);
/* set len = 1 to mark this desc buffers done DMA
*/
vq->heads[ubuf->desc].len = VHOST_DMA_DONE_LEN;
kref_put(&ubufs->kref,
vhost_zerocopy_done_signal);
Doing so, we might have redundant vhost_poll_queue(). Do you
know in
which scenario there might be missing of adding and
signaling
during
zerocopy?
Yes, as we only do signaling and adding during tx work, if
there's
no
tx
work when the skb were sent, we may lose the opportunity to
let
guest
know about the completion. It's easy to be reproduced with
netperf
test.
The reason which host signals guest is to free guest tx buffers,
if
there is no tx work, then it's not necessary to signal the guest
unless
guest runs out of memory. The pending buffers will be released
virtio_net device gone.

What's the behavior of netperf test when you hit this situation?

Thanks
Shirley
IIRC guest networking seems to be lost.
It seems vhost_enable_notify is missing in somewhere else?

Thanks
Shirley
Donnu. I see virtio sending packets but they do not get
to tun on host. debugging.
I looked at the code, if (zerocopy) check is needed for below code:

+ if (zerocopy) {
num_pends = likely(vq->upend_idx>= vq->done_idx) ?
(vq->upend_idx - vq->done_idx) :
(vq->upend_idx + UIO_MAXIOV - vq->done_idx);
if (unlikely(num_pends> VHOST_MAX_PEND)) {
tx_poll_start(net, sock);
vhost_poll_queue
set_bit(SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE,&sock->flags);
break;
}
+ }
if (unlikely(vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev, vq))) {
vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, vq);
continue;
}
break;

No objection to add this but looks no difference to me as we won't touch upend_idx and done_idx when zercocopy is not used.


Second, whether it's possible the problem comes from tx_poll_start()? In
some situation, vhost_poll_wakeup() is not being called?

Thanks
Shirley



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/