Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH V5 0/9] Fixes for vhost metadata acceleration | From | Jason Wang <> | Date | Tue, 13 Aug 2019 16:12:49 +0800 |
| |
On 2019/8/12 下午5:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:44:51AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 2019/8/11 上午1:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 01:48:42AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> Hi all: >>>> >>>> This series try to fix several issues introduced by meta data >>>> accelreation series. Please review. >>>> >>>> Changes from V4: >>>> - switch to use spinlock synchronize MMU notifier with accessors >>>> >>>> Changes from V3: >>>> - remove the unnecessary patch >>>> >>>> Changes from V2: >>>> - use seqlck helper to synchronize MMU notifier with vhost worker >>>> >>>> Changes from V1: >>>> - try not use RCU to syncrhonize MMU notifier with vhost worker >>>> - set dirty pages after no readers >>>> - return -EAGAIN only when we find the range is overlapped with >>>> metadata >>>> >>>> Jason Wang (9): >>>> vhost: don't set uaddr for invalid address >>>> vhost: validate MMU notifier registration >>>> vhost: fix vhost map leak >>>> vhost: reset invalidate_count in vhost_set_vring_num_addr() >>>> vhost: mark dirty pages during map uninit >>>> vhost: don't do synchronize_rcu() in vhost_uninit_vq_maps() >>>> vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker >>>> vhost: correctly set dirty pages in MMU notifiers callback >>>> vhost: do not return -EAGAIN for non blocking invalidation too early >>>> >>>> drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 202 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- >>>> drivers/vhost/vhost.h | 6 +- >>>> 2 files changed, 122 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-) >>> This generally looks more solid. >>> >>> But this amounts to a significant overhaul of the code. >>> >>> At this point how about we revert 7f466032dc9e5a61217f22ea34b2df932786bbfc >>> for this release, and then re-apply a corrected version >>> for the next one? >> >> If possible, consider we've actually disabled the feature. How about just >> queued those patches for next release? >> >> Thanks > Sorry if I was unclear. My idea is that > 1. I revert the disabled code > 2. You send a patch readding it with all the fixes squashed > 3. Maybe optimizations on top right away? > 4. We queue *that* for next and see what happens. > > And the advantage over the patchy approach is that the current patches > are hard to review. E.g. it's not reasonable to ask RCU guys to review > the whole of vhost for RCU usage but it's much more reasonable to ask > about a specific patch.
Ok. Then I agree to revert.
Thanks
| |