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;
Date:   Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:17:06 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc:     Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, Eli Cohen <elic@nvidia.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
Message-ID: <20220324021428-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20220321060429.10457-1-jasowang@redhat.com>
 <20220321085317.3148-1-hdanton@sina.com>
 <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220324060419.3682-1-hdanton@sina.com>
Precedence: bulk

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.

-- 
MST