Re: [V2 PATCH 9/9] vhost: zerocopy: poll vq in zerocopy callback
From: Shirley Ma
Date: Fri May 18 2012 - 11:29:40 EST
On Fri, 2012-05-18 at 17:58 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 05/17/2012 11:34 PM, Shirley Ma wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 10:50 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> >> 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.
> > VHOST_MAX_PEND should handle the capacity.
> >
> > Hasn't the above situation been handled in handle_tx() code?:
> > ...
> > if (unlikely(num_pends> VHOST_MAX_PEND)) {
> > tx_poll_start(net, sock);
> >
> set_bit(SOCK_ASYNC_NOSPACE,&sock->flags);
> > break;
> > }
> > ...
> >
> > Thanks
> > Shirley
>
> It may not help in because:
>
> - tx polling depends on skb_orphan() which is often called by device
> driver when it place the packet into the queue of the devices instead
> of when the packets were sent. So it was too early for vhost to be
> notified.
Then do you think it's better to replace with vhost_poll_queue here
instead?
> - it only works when the pending DMAs exceeds VHOST_MAX_PEND, it's
> highly possible that guest needs to be notified when the pending
> packets
> isn't so much.
In which situation the guest needs to be notified when there is no TX
besides buffers run out?
> So this piece of code may not help and could be removed and we need
> to
> poll the virt-queue during zerocopy callback ( through it could be
> further optimized but may not be easy).
Thanks
Shirley
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/