lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [V2 PATCH 9/9] vhost: zerocopy: poll vq in zerocopy callback
On 05/17/2012 01:32 AM, Shirley Ma wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 18:14 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 08:10:27AM -0700, Shirley Ma wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-05-16 at 10:58 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>>>> drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 1 +
>>>>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
>>>>>> index 947f00d..7b75fdf 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
>>>>>> @@ -1604,6 +1604,7 @@ void vhost_zerocopy_callback(void *arg)
>>>>>> struct vhost_ubuf_ref *ubufs = ubuf->arg;
>>>>>> struct vhost_virtqueue *vq = ubufs->vq;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + vhost_poll_queue(&vq->poll);
>>>>>> /* set len = 1 to mark this desc buffers done DMA */
>>>>>> vq->heads[ubuf->desc].len = VHOST_DMA_DONE_LEN;
>>>>>> kref_put(&ubufs->kref, vhost_zerocopy_done_signal);
>>>>> Doing so, we might have redundant vhost_poll_queue(). Do you
>> know in
>>>>> which scenario there might be missing of adding and signaling
>> during
>>>>> zerocopy?
>>>> Yes, as we only do signaling and adding during tx work, if there's
>> no
>>>> tx
>>>> work when the skb were sent, we may lose the opportunity to let
>> guest
>>>> know about the completion. It's easy to be reproduced with netperf
>>>> test.
>>> The reason which host signals guest is to free guest tx buffers, if
>>> there is no tx work, then it's not necessary to signal the guest
>> unless
>>> guest runs out of memory. The pending buffers will be released
>>> virtio_net device gone.

Looks like we only free the skbs in .ndo_start_xmit().
>>>
>>> What's the behavior of netperf test when you hit this situation?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Shirley
>> IIRC guest networking seems to be lost.
> It seems vhost_enable_notify is missing in somewhere else?
>
> Thanks
> Shirley
>

The problem is we may stop the tx queue when there no enough capacity to
place packets, at this moment we depends on the tx interrupt to
re-enable the tx queue. So if we didn't poll the vhost during callback,
guest may lose the tx interrupt to re-enable the tx queue which could
stall the whole tx queue.

Thanks


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-17 05:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans