Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755634AbZKDMBP (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:01:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755604AbZKDMBP (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:01:15 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28047 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755601AbZKDMBO (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:01:14 -0500 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:57:29 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Gregory Haskins , Eric Dumazet , netdev@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hpa@zytor.com, Rusty Russell , s.hetze@linux-ag.com Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server Message-ID: <20091104115729.GD8398@redhat.com> References: <20091103172422.GD5591@redhat.com> <4AF0708B.4020406@gmail.com> <4AF07199.2020601@gmail.com> <4AF072EE.9020202@gmail.com> <20091103235744.GF6726@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20091103235744.GF6726@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3166 Lines: 89 On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 03:57:44PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 01:14:06PM -0500, Gregory Haskins wrote: > > Gregory Haskins wrote: > > > Eric Dumazet wrote: > > >> Michael S. Tsirkin a ?crit : > > >>> +static void handle_tx(struct vhost_net *net) > > >>> +{ > > >>> + struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = &net->dev.vqs[VHOST_NET_VQ_TX]; > > >>> + unsigned head, out, in, s; > > >>> + struct msghdr msg = { > > >>> + .msg_name = NULL, > > >>> + .msg_namelen = 0, > > >>> + .msg_control = NULL, > > >>> + .msg_controllen = 0, > > >>> + .msg_iov = vq->iov, > > >>> + .msg_flags = MSG_DONTWAIT, > > >>> + }; > > >>> + size_t len, total_len = 0; > > >>> + int err, wmem; > > >>> + size_t hdr_size; > > >>> + struct socket *sock = rcu_dereference(vq->private_data); > > >>> + if (!sock) > > >>> + return; > > >>> + > > >>> + wmem = atomic_read(&sock->sk->sk_wmem_alloc); > > >>> + if (wmem >= sock->sk->sk_sndbuf) > > >>> + return; > > >>> + > > >>> + use_mm(net->dev.mm); > > >>> + mutex_lock(&vq->mutex); > > >>> + vhost_no_notify(vq); > > >>> + > > >> using rcu_dereference() and mutex_lock() at the same time seems wrong, I suspect > > >> that your use of RCU is not correct. > > >> > > >> 1) rcu_dereference() should be done inside a read_rcu_lock() section, and > > >> we are not allowed to sleep in such a section. > > >> (Quoting Documentation/RCU/whatisRCU.txt : > > >> It is illegal to block while in an RCU read-side critical section, ) > > >> > > >> 2) mutex_lock() can sleep (ie block) > > >> > > > > > > > > > Michael, > > > I warned you that this needed better documentation ;) > > > > > > Eric, > > > I think I flagged this once before, but Michael convinced me that it > > > was indeed "ok", if but perhaps a bit unconventional. I will try to > > > find the thread. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > -Greg > > > > > > > Here it is: > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/8/12/173 > > What was happening in that case was that the rcu_dereference() > was being used in a workqueue item. The role of rcu_read_lock() > was taken on be the start of execution of the workqueue item, of > rcu_read_unlock() by the end of execution of the workqueue item, and > of synchronize_rcu() by flush_workqueue(). This does work, at least > assuming that flush_workqueue() operates as advertised, which it appears > to at first glance. > > The above code looks somewhat different, however -- I don't see > handle_tx() being executed in the context of a work queue. Instead > it appears to be in an interrupt handler. > So what is the story? Using synchronize_irq() or some such? > > Thanx, Paul No, there has been no change (I won't be able to use a mutex in an interrupt handler, will I?). handle_tx is still called in the context of a work queue: either from handle_tx_kick or from handle_tx_net which are work queue items. Can you ack this usage please? -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/