Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2023 11:54:37 +0100
From:   Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
To:     Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@salutedevices.com>
Cc:     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>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@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 v6 3/4] virtio/vsock: fix logic which reduces
 credit update messages
Message-ID: <v335g4fjrn5f6tsw4nysztaklze2obnjwpezps3jgb2xickpge@ea5woxob52nc>
References: <20231205064806.2851305-1-avkrasnov@salutedevices.com>
 <20231205064806.2851305-4-avkrasnov@salutedevices.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231205064806.2851305-4-avkrasnov@salutedevices.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 09:48:05AM +0300, Arseniy Krasnov wrote:
>Add one more condition for sending credit update during dequeue from
>stream socket: when number of bytes in the rx queue is smaller than
>SO_RCVLOWAT value of the socket. This is actual for non-default value
>of SO_RCVLOWAT (e.g. not 1) - idea is to "kick" peer to continue data
>transmission, because we need at least SO_RCVLOWAT bytes in our rx
>queue to wake up user for reading data (in corner case it is also
>possible to stuck both tx and rx sides, this is why 'Fixes' is used).
>
>Fixes: b89d882dc9fc ("vsock/virtio: reduce credit update messages")
>Signed-off-by: Arseniy Krasnov <avkrasnov@salutedevices.com>
>---
> net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
>index e137d740804e..461c89882142 100644
>--- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
>+++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport_common.c
>@@ -558,6 +558,7 @@ virtio_transport_stream_do_dequeue(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
> 	struct virtio_vsock_sock *vvs = vsk->trans;
> 	size_t bytes, total = 0;
> 	struct sk_buff *skb;
>+	bool low_rx_bytes;
> 	int err = -EFAULT;
> 	u32 free_space;
>
>@@ -602,6 +603,8 @@ virtio_transport_stream_do_dequeue(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
> 	}
>
> 	free_space = vvs->buf_alloc - (vvs->fwd_cnt - vvs->last_fwd_cnt);
>+	low_rx_bytes = (vvs->rx_bytes <
>+			sock_rcvlowat(sk_vsock(vsk), 0, INT_MAX));

As in the previous patch, should we avoid the update it if `fwd_cnt` and 
`last_fwd_cnt` are the same?

Now I'm thinking if it is better to add that check directly in 
virtio_transport_send_credit_update().

Stefano

>
> 	spin_unlock_bh(&vvs->rx_lock);
>
>@@ -611,9 +614,11 @@ virtio_transport_stream_do_dequeue(struct vsock_sock *vsk,
> 	 * too high causes extra messages. Too low causes transmitter
> 	 * stalls. As stalls are in theory more expensive than extra
> 	 * messages, we set the limit to a high value. TODO: experiment
>-	 * with different values.
>+	 * with different values. Also send credit update message when
>+	 * number of bytes in rx queue is not enough to wake up reader.
> 	 */
>-	if (free_space < VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE)
>+	if (free_space < VIRTIO_VSOCK_MAX_PKT_BUF_SIZE ||
>+	    low_rx_bytes)
> 		virtio_transport_send_credit_update(vsk);
>
> 	return total;
>-- 
>2.25.1
>