Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221226074908.8154-1-jasowang@redhat.com> <20221226074908.8154-4-jasowang@redhat.com>
 <20221226183705-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <CACGkMEuNZLJRnWw+XNxJ-to1y8L2GrTrJkk0y0Gwb5H2YhDczQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20221227022255-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <d77bc1ce-b73f-1ba8-f04f-b3bffeb731c3@redhat.com>
 <20221227043148-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <0d9f1b89-9374-747b-3fb0-b4b28ad0ace1@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <0d9f1b89-9374-747b-3fb0-b4b28ad0ace1@redhat.com>
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 28 Dec 2022 19:53:08 +0800
Message-ID: <CACGkMEv=+D+Es4sfde_X7F0zspVdy4Rs1Wi9qfCudsznsUrOTQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] virtio_ring: introduce a per virtqueue waitqueue
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, edumazet@google.com, kuba@kernel.org,
        pabeni@redhat.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        maxime.coquelin@redhat.com, alvaro.karsz@solid-run.com,
        eperezma@redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 2:34 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> =E5=9C=A8 2022/12/27 17:38, Michael S. Tsirkin =E5=86=99=E9=81=93:
> > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 05:12:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >> =E5=9C=A8 2022/12/27 15:33, Michael S. Tsirkin =E5=86=99=E9=81=93:
> >>> 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.

So after some investigation, it seems the watchdog.c doesn't help. The
only export helper is touch_softlockup_watchdog() which tries to avoid
triggering the lockups warning for the known slow path.

And before the patch, we end up with a real infinite loop which could
be caught by RCU stall detector which is not the case of the sleep.
What we can do is probably do a periodic netdev_err().

Thanks

> >>
> >>
> >>> 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. A=
nd
> >> 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
>
>
> >
> >>>