Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACGkMEvF80FuU0uD+RZMOrySQ0K2RZVh7Pmn4UhNtz_Exs3c2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CACGkMEvLqox3QZxpxeQdrjBnM6zRr_wGfddoN45RUSsZEOe=bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220321123420.3207-1-hdanton@sina.com> <CACGkMEt-PRCsBQ+EJVGeWGikJfLk-0M1dRPMqnp9YC5R4HYAjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220324005345.3623-1-hdanton@sina.com> <20220324060419.3682-1-hdanton@sina.com>
 <20220324021428-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20220324120217.3746-1-hdanton@sina.com>
 <DM8PR12MB54004034A8A5DA1D2B6EA8D1AB199@DM8PR12MB5400.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <CACGkMEtVUqJcS1W2p1U9RCjQqQOSREu1J9zjmw37TbPBNqq7tA@mail.gmail.com> <20220325024324-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20220325024324-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Date:   Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:53:09 +0800
Message-ID: <CACGkMEvie2Zx9OnwOydguCiLMw71vKB1HmqX0uD9LuWPAakRRw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vdpa: mlx5: prevent cvq work from hogging CPU
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc:     Eli Cohen <elic@nvidia.com>, Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>,
        virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 2:45 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:22:25AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 8:24 PM Eli Cohen <elic@nvidia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 2:02 PM
> > > > To: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> > > > Cc: Eli Cohen <elic@nvidia.com>; Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>; virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>; linux-
> > > > kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vdpa: mlx5: prevent cvq work from hogging CPU
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 16:20:34 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 2:17 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 02:04:19PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:34:09 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 8:54 AM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:59:14 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, there will be no "infinite" loop, but since the loop is triggered
> > > > > > > > > > by userspace. It looks to me it will delay the flush/drain of the
> > > > > > > > > > workqueue forever which is still suboptimal.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Usually it is barely possible to shoot two birds using a stone.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Given the "forever", I am inclined to not running faster, hehe, though
> > > > > > > > > another cobble is to add another line in the loop checking if mvdev is
> > > > > > > > > unregistered, and for example make mvdev->cvq unready before destroying
> > > > > > > > > workqueue.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > static void mlx5_vdpa_dev_del(struct vdpa_mgmt_dev *v_mdev, struct vdpa_device *dev)
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > >         struct mlx5_vdpa_mgmtdev *mgtdev = container_of(v_mdev, struct mlx5_vdpa_mgmtdev, mgtdev);
> > > > > > > > >         struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev = to_mvdev(dev);
> > > > > > > > >         struct mlx5_vdpa_net *ndev = to_mlx5_vdpa_ndev(mvdev);
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >         mlx5_notifier_unregister(mvdev->mdev, &ndev->nb);
> > > > > > > > >         destroy_workqueue(mvdev->wq);
> > > > > > > > >         _vdpa_unregister_device(dev);
> > > > > > > > >         mgtdev->ndev = NULL;
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, so we had
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1) using a quota for re-requeue
> > > > > > > > 2) using something like
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > while (READ_ONCE(cvq->ready)) {
> > > > > > > >         ...
> > > > > > > >         cond_resched();
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There should not be too much difference except we need to use
> > > > > > > > cancel_work_sync() instead of flush_work for 1).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I would keep the code as is but if you stick I can change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No Sir I would not - I am simply not a fan of work requeue.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hillf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think I agree - requeue adds latency spikes under heavy load -
> > > > > > unfortunately, not measured by netperf but still important
> > > > > > for latency sensitive workloads. Checking a flag is cheaper.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just spot another possible issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > The workqueue will be used by another work to update the carrier
> > > > > (event_handler()). Using cond_resched() may still have unfair issue
> > > > > which blocks the carrier update for infinite time,
> > > >
> > > > Then would you please specify the reason why mvdev->wq is single
> > > > threaded?
> >
> > I didn't see a reason why it needs to be a single threaded (ordered).
> >
> > > Given requeue, the serialization of the two works is not
> > > > strong. Otherwise unbound WQ that can process works in parallel is
> > > > a cure to the unfairness above.
> >
> > Yes, and we probably don't want a per device workqueue but a per
> > module one. Or simply use the system_wq one.
> >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think the proposed patch can still be used with quota equal to one.
> > > That would guarantee fairness.
> > > This is not performance critical and a single workqueue should be enough.
> >
> > Yes, but both Hillf and Michael don't like requeuing. So my plan is
> >
> > 1) send patch 2 first since it's a hard requirement for the next RHEL release
> > 2) a series to fix this hogging issue by
> > 2.1) switch to use a per module workqueue
> > 2.2) READ_ONCE(cvq->ready) + cond_resched()
> >
> > Thanks
>
> Actually if we don't care about speed here then requeing with quota of 1
> is fine, in that we don't have a quota at all, we just always requeue
> instead of a loop.
>
> It's the mix of requeue and a loop that I consider confusing.

Ok, Hillf, does this make sense for you? We want the issue to be fixed
soon, it's near to our product release.

Thanks

>
>
> > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Hillf
> > >
>