Re: RFD: virtio balloon API use (was Re: [PATCH 5 of 5] virtio:expose added descriptors immediately)

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 01:08:19PM -0300, Rafael Aquini wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 10:25:58AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 10:35:47AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 12:20:51 +0300, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 06:12:53PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > > > A virtio driver does virtqueue_add_buf() multiple times before finally
> > > > > calling virtqueue_kick(); previously we only exposed the added buffers
> > > > > in the virtqueue_kick() call.  This means we don't need a memory
> > > > > barrier in virtqueue_add_buf(), but it reduces concurrency as the
> > > > > device (ie. host) can't see the buffers until the kick.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > Looking at recent mm compaction patches made me look at locking
> > > > in balloon closely. And I noticed the referenced patch (commit
> > > > ee7cd8981e15bcb365fc762afe3fc47b8242f630 upstream) interacts strangely
> > > > with virtio balloon; balloon currently does:
> > > > 
> > > > static void tell_host(struct virtio_balloon *vb, struct virtqueue *vq)
> > > > {
> > > >         struct scatterlist sg;
> > > > 
> > > >         sg_init_one(&sg, vb->pfns, sizeof(vb->pfns[0]) * vb->num_pfns);
> > > > 
> > > >         init_completion(&vb->acked);
> > > > 
> > > >         /* We should always be able to add one buffer to an empty queue. */
> > > >         if (virtqueue_add_buf(vq, &sg, 1, 0, vb, GFP_KERNEL) < 0)
> > > >                 BUG();
> > > >         virtqueue_kick(vq);
> > > > 
> > > >         /* When host has read buffer, this completes via balloon_ack */
> > > >         wait_for_completion(&vb->acked);
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > While vq callback does:
> > > > 
> > > > static void balloon_ack(struct virtqueue *vq)
> > > > {
> > > >         struct virtio_balloon *vb;
> > > >         unsigned int len;
> > > > 
> > > >         vb = virtqueue_get_buf(vq, &len);
> > > >         if (vb)
> > > >                 complete(&vb->acked);
> > > > }
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So virtqueue_get_buf might now run concurrently with virtqueue_kick.
> > > > I audited both and this seems safe in practice but I think
> > > 
> > > Good spotting!
> > > 
> > > Agreed.  Because there's only add_buf, we get away with it: the add_buf
> > > must be almost finished by the time get_buf runs because the device has
> > > seen the buffer.
> > > 
> > > > we need to either declare this legal at the API level
> > > > or add locking in driver.
> > > 
> > > I wonder if we should just lock in the balloon driver, rather than
> > > document this corner case and set a bad example.
> > 
> > We'll need to replace &vb->acked with a waitqueue
> > and do get_buf from the same thread.
> > But I note that stats_request hash the same issue.
> > Let's see if we can fix it.
> > 
> > > Are there other
> > > drivers which take the same shortcut?
> > 
> > Not that I know.
> > 
> > > > Further, is there a guarantee that we never get
> > > > spurious callbacks?  We currently check ring not empty
> > > > but esp for non shared MSI this might not be needed.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I think this saves us.  A spurious interrupt won't trigger
> > > a spurious callback.
> > > 
> > > > If a spurious callback triggers, virtqueue_get_buf can run
> > > > concurrently with virtqueue_add_buf which is known to be racy.
> > > > Again I think this is currently safe as no spurious callbacks in
> > > > practice but should we guarantee no spurious callbacks at the API level
> > > > or add locking in driver?
> > > 
> > > I think we should guarantee it, but is there a hole in the current
> > > implementation?
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > Rusty.
> > 
> > Could be. The check for ring empty looks somewhat suspicious.
> > It might be expensive to make it 100% robust - that check was
> > intended as an optimization for shared interrupts.
> > Whith per vq interrupts we IMO do not need the check.
> > If we add locking in balloon I think there's no need
> > to guarantee no spurious interrupts.
> > 
> 
> As 'locking in balloon', may I assume the approach I took for the compaction case
> is OK and aligned to address these concerns of yours?

No, I mean the patch I posted. Not so much locking as moving
get_buf to thread itself.

> If not, do not hesitate in
> giving me your thoughts, please. I'm respinning a V3 series to address a couple
> of extra nitpicks from the compaction standpoint, and I'd love to be able to
> address any extra concern you might have on the balloon side of that work.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> Rafael.

-- 
MST
--
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/