Re: [PATCH V2 7/9] vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker
From: Michael S. Tsirkin
Date: Mon Aug 05 2019 - 02:30:49 EST
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 12:36:40PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On 2019/8/2 äå10:27, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 09:46:13AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 05:40:07PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > This must be a proper barrier, like a spinlock, mutex, or
> > > > > synchronize_rcu.
> > > >
> > > > I start with synchronize_rcu() but both you and Michael raise some
> > > > concern.
> > > I've also idly wondered if calling synchronize_rcu() under the various
> > > mm locks is a deadlock situation.
> > >
> > > > Then I try spinlock and mutex:
> > > >
> > > > 1) spinlock: add lots of overhead on datapath, this leads 0 performance
> > > > improvement.
> > > I think the topic here is correctness not performance improvement
> > The topic is whether we should revert
> > commit 7f466032dc9 ("vhost: access vq metadata through kernel virtual address")
> > or keep it in. The only reason to keep it is performance.
> Maybe it's time to introduce the config option?
Depending on CONFIG_BROKEN? I'm not sure it's a good idea.
> > Now as long as all this code is disabled anyway, we can experiment a
> > bit.
> > I personally feel we would be best served by having two code paths:
> > - Access to VM memory directly mapped into kernel
> > - Access to userspace
> > Having it all cleanly split will allow a bunch of optimizations, for
> > example for years now we planned to be able to process an incoming short
> > packet directly on softirq path, or an outgoing on directly within
> > eventfd.
> It's not hard consider we've already had our own accssors. But the question
> is (as asked in another thread), do you want permanent GUP or still use MMU
We want THP and NUMA to work. Both are important for performance.