Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.33 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.33;
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2023 12:37:53 -0500
From:   "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To:     Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@salutedevices.com>
Cc:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>,
        Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Bobby Eshleman <bobby.eshleman@bytedance.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel@sberdevices.ru, oxffffaa@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v5 2/3] virtio/vsock: send credit update during
 setting SO_RCVLOWAT
Message-ID: <20231130123653-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <20231130130840.253733-1-avkrasnov@salutedevices.com>
 <20231130130840.253733-3-avkrasnov@salutedevices.com>
 <20231130084044-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <02de8982-ec4a-b3b2-e8e5-1bca28cfc01b@salutedevices.com>
 <20231130085445-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <pbkiwezwlf6dmogx7exur6tjrtcfzxyn7eqlehqxivqifbkojv@xlziiuzekon4>
 <b3fa2aaa-9fdc-30a2-4c87-53eb106900ee@salutedevices.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <b3fa2aaa-9fdc-30a2-4c87-53eb106900ee@salutedevices.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 06:41:56PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 30.11.2023 17:11, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 08:58:58AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 04:43:34PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 30.11.2023 16:42, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >>> > On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 04:08:39PM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
> >>> >> Send credit update message when SO_RCVLOWAT is updated and it is bigger
> >>> >> than number of bytes in rx queue. It is needed, because 'poll()' will
> >>> >> wait until number of bytes in rx queue will be not smaller than
> >>> >> SO_RCVLOWAT, so kick sender to send more data. Otherwise mutual hungup
> >>> >> for tx/rx is possible: sender waits for free space and receiver is
> >>> >> waiting data in 'poll()'.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Signed-off-by: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@salutedevices.com>
> >>> >> ---
> >>> >>? Changelog:
> >>> >>? v1 -> v2:
> >>> >>?? * Update commit message by removing 'This patch adds XXX' manner.
> >>> >>?? * Do not initialize 'send_update' variable - set it directly during
> >>> >>???? first usage.
> >>> >>? v3 -> v4:
> >>> >>?? * Fit comment in 'virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat()' to 80 chars.
> >>> >>? v4 -> v5:
> >>> >>?? * Do not change callbacks order in transport structures.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>? drivers/vhost/vsock.c?????????????????? |? 1 +
> >>> >>? include/linux/virtio_vsock.h??????????? |? 1 +
> >>> >>? net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c??????? |? 1 +
> >>> >>? net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> >>? net/vmw_vsock/vsock_loopback.c????????? |? 1 +
> >>> >>? 5 files changed, 31 insertions(+)
> >>> >>
> >>> >> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> >>> >> index f75731396b7e..4146f80db8ac 100644
> >>> >> --- a/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> >>> >> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vsock.c
> >>> >> @@ -451,6 +451,7 @@ static struct virtio_transport vhost_transport = {
> >>> >>????????? .notify_buffer_size?????? = virtio_transport_notify_buffer_size,
> >>> >>
> >>> >>????????? .read_skb = virtio_transport_read_skb,
> >>> >> +??????? .notify_set_rcvlowat????? = virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat
> >>> >>????? },
> >>> >>
> >>> >>????? .send_pkt = vhost_transport_send_pkt,
> >>> >> diff --git a/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h b/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h
> >>> >> index ebb3ce63d64d..c82089dee0c8 100644
> >>> >> --- a/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h
> >>> >> +++ b/include/linux/virtio_vsock.h
> >>> >> @@ -256,4 +256,5 @@ void virtio_transport_put_credit(struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs, u32 credit);
> >>> >>? void virtio_transport_deliver_tap_pkt(struct sk_buff *skb);
> >>> >>? int virtio_transport_purge_skbs(void *vsk, struct sk_buff_head *list);
> >>> >>? int virtio_transport_read_skb(struct vsock_sock *vsk, skb_read_actor_t read_actor);
> >>> >> +int virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat(struct vsock_sock *vsk, int val);
> >>> >>? #endif /* _LINUX_VIRTIO_VSOCK_H */
> >>> >> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> >>> >> index af5bab1acee1..8007593a3a93 100644
> >>> >> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> >>> >> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> >>> >> @@ -539,6 +539,7 @@ static struct virtio_transport virtio_transport = {
> >>> >>????????? .notify_buffer_size?????? = virtio_transport_notify_buffer_size,
> >>> >>
> >>> >>????????? .read_skb = virtio_transport_read_skb,
> >>> >> +??????? .notify_set_rcvlowat????? = virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat
> >>> >>????? },
> >>> >>
> >>> >>????? .send_pkt = virtio_transport_send_pkt,
> >>> >> diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> >>> >> index f6dc896bf44c..1cb556ad4597 100644
> >>> >> --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> >>> >> +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
> >>> >> @@ -1684,6 +1684,33 @@ int virtio_transport_read_skb(struct vsock_sock *vsk, skb_read_actor_t recv_acto
> >>> >>? }
> >>> >>? EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(virtio_transport_read_skb);
> >>> >>
> >>> >> +int virtio_transport_notify_set_rcvlowat(struct vsock_sock *vsk, >> int val)
> >>> >> +{
> >>> >> +??? struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs = vsk->trans;
> >>> >> +??? bool send_update;
> >>> >> +
> >>> >> +??? spin_lock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock);
> >>> >> +
> >>> >> +??? /* If number of available bytes is less than new SO_RCVLOWAT value,
> >>> >> +???? * kick sender to send more data, because sender may sleep in >> its
> >>> >> +???? * 'send()' syscall waiting for enough space at our side.
> >>> >> +???? */
> >>> >> +??? send_update = vvs->rx_bytes < val;
> >>> >> +
> >>> >> +??? spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock);
> >>> >> +
> >>> >> +??? if (send_update) {
> >>> >> +??????? int err;
> >>> >> +
> >>> >> +??????? err = virtio_transport_send_credit_update(vsk);
> >>> >> +??????? if (err < 0)
> >>> >> +??????????? return err;
> >>> >> +??? }
> >>> >> +
> >>> >> +??? return 0;
> >>> >> +}
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > I find it strange that this will send a credit update
> >>> > even if nothing changed since this was called previously.
> >>> > I'm not sure whether this is a problem protocol-wise,
> >>> > but it certainly was not envisioned when the protocol was
> >>> > built. WDYT?
> >>>
> >>> >From virtio spec I found:
> >>>
> >>> It is also valid to send a VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_UPDATE packet without previously receiving a
> >>> VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_REQUEST packet. This allows communicating updates any time a change
> >>> in buffer space occurs.
> >>> So I guess there is no limitations to send such type of packet, e.g. it is not
> >>> required to be a reply for some another packet. Please, correct me if im wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Arseniy
> >>
> >>
> >> Absolutely. My point was different - with this patch it is possible
> >> that you are not adding any credits at all since the previous
> >> VIRTIO_VSOCK_OP_CREDIT_UPDATE.
> > 
> > I think the problem we're solving here is that since as an optimization we avoid sending the update for every byte we consume, but we put a threshold, then we make sure we update the peer.
> > 
> > A credit update contains a snapshot and sending it the same as the previous one should not create any problem.
> > 
> > My doubt now is that we only do this when we set RCVLOWAT , should we also do something when we consume bytes to avoid the optimization we have?
> 
> @Michael, Stefano just reproduced problem during bytes reading, but there is already old fix for this, which we forget to merge:)
> I think it must be included to this patchset.
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/f304eabe-d2ef-11b1-f115-6967632f0339@sberdevices.ru/
> 
> Thanks, Arseniy


I generally don't merge patches tagged as RFC.
Repost without that tag?
Also, it looks like a bugfix we need either way, no?

> > 
> > Stefano
> >