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;
Date:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 10:45:43 -0400
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@redhat.com>
Cc:     Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@amd.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, xuanzhuo@linux.alibaba.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, edumazet@google.com,
        kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/2] virtio-net: add cond_resched() to the
 command waiting loop
Message-ID: <20230721104445-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20230720083839.481487-1-jasowang@redhat.com>
 <20230720083839.481487-3-jasowang@redhat.com>
 <e4eb0162-d303-b17c-a71d-ca3929380b31@amd.com>
 <20230720170001-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <263a5ad7-1189-3be3-70de-c38a685bebe0@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <263a5ad7-1189-3be3-70de-c38a685bebe0@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:37:00PM +0200, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> 
> 
> On 7/20/23 23:02, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 01:26:20PM -0700, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> > > On 7/20/23 1:38 AM, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Adding cond_resched() to the command waiting loop for a better
> > > > co-operation with the scheduler. This allows to give CPU a breath to
> > > > run other task(workqueue) instead of busy looping when preemption is
> > > > not allowed on a device whose CVQ might be slow.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> > > 
> > > This still leaves hung processes, but at least it doesn't pin the CPU any
> > > more.  Thanks.
> > > Reviewed-by: Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@amd.com>
> > > 
> > 
> > I'd like to see a full solution
> > 1- block until interrupt
> 
> Would it make sense to also have a timeout?
> And when timeout expires, set FAILED bit in device status?

virtio spec does not set any limits on the timing of vq
processing.

> > 2- still handle surprise removal correctly by waking in that case
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > ---
> > > >    drivers/net/virtio_net.c | 4 +++-
> > > >    1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > index 9f3b1d6ac33d..e7533f29b219 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
> > > > @@ -2314,8 +2314,10 @@ static bool virtnet_send_command(struct virtnet_info *vi, u8 class, u8 cmd,
> > > >            * into the hypervisor, so the request should be handled immediately.
> > > >            */
> > > >           while (!virtqueue_get_buf(vi->cvq, &tmp) &&
> > > > -              !virtqueue_is_broken(vi->cvq))
> > > > +              !virtqueue_is_broken(vi->cvq)) {
> > > > +               cond_resched();
> > > >                   cpu_relax();
> > > > +       }
> > > > 
> > > >           return vi->ctrl->status == VIRTIO_NET_OK;
> > > >    }
> > > > --
> > > > 2.39.3
> > > > 
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Virtualization mailing list
> > > > Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
> >