Messages in this thread | | | From | Jason Wang <> | Date | Thu, 30 Jun 2022 14:15:34 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2] virtio-net: fix the race between refill work and close |
| |
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 2:07 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 10:51 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:08:04 +0800 Jason Wang wrote: > > > +static void enable_refill_work(struct virtnet_info *vi) > > > +{ > > > + spin_lock(&vi->refill_lock); > > > + vi->refill_work_enabled = true; > > > + spin_unlock(&vi->refill_lock); > > > +} > > > + > > > +static void disable_refill_work(struct virtnet_info *vi) > > > +{ > > > + spin_lock(&vi->refill_lock); > > > + vi->refill_work_enabled = false; > > > + spin_unlock(&vi->refill_lock); > > > +} > > > + > > > static void virtqueue_napi_schedule(struct napi_struct *napi, > > > struct virtqueue *vq) > > > { > > > @@ -1527,8 +1547,12 @@ static int virtnet_receive(struct receive_queue *rq, int budget, > > > } > > > > > > if (rq->vq->num_free > min((unsigned int)budget, virtqueue_get_vring_size(rq->vq)) / 2) { > > > - if (!try_fill_recv(vi, rq, GFP_ATOMIC)) > > > - schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, 0); > > > + if (!try_fill_recv(vi, rq, GFP_ATOMIC)) { > > > + spin_lock(&vi->refill_lock); > > > + if (vi->refill_work_enabled) > > > + schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, 0); > > > + spin_unlock(&vi->refill_lock); > > > > Are you sure you can use the basic spin_lock() flavor in all cases? > > Isn't the disable/enable called from a different context than this > > thing here? > > This function will only be called in bh so it's safe.
Ok, so it looks like we should use the bh variant in close. Otherwise we may have a deadlock. Will fix it.
Thanks
> > > > > The entire delayed work construct seems a little risky because the work > > may go to sleep after disabling napi, causing large latency spikes. > > Yes, but it only happens on OOM. > > > I guess you must have a good reason no to simply reschedule the NAPI > > and keep retrying with GFP_ATOMIC... > > Less pressure on the memory allocator on OOM probably, but it looks > like an independent issue that might be optimized in the future. > > > > > Please add the target tree name to the subject. > > Ok > > Thanks > > >
| |