On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 10:21:45AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
在 2022/9/7 15:46, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道:I was referring to Paolo's idea of having a timeout.
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 09:07:20AM +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 10:09 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:Hmm timeouts are kind of arbitrary.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 6:56 PM Paolo Abeni <pabeni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I see.
On Mon, 2022-09-05 at 15:49 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:Simulator is not the only one that is using a workqueue (but should be
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 3:15 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Uhmm... touching a driver for a simulator's sake looks a little weird.
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 12:53:41PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:Yes, since the simulator is using a workqueue to handle control virtueue.
Adding cond_resched() to the command waiting loop for a betterThat's a weird commit to fix. so it fixes the simulator?
co-operation with the scheduler. This allows to give CPU a breath to
run other task(workqueue) instead of busy looping when preemption is
not allowed.
What's more important. This is a must for some vDPA parent to work
since control virtqueue is emulated via a workqueue for those parents.
Fixes: bda324fd037a ("vdpasim: control virtqueue support")
the first).
I can see that the mlx5 vDPA driver is using a workqueue as well (see
mlx5_vdpa_kick_vq()).
And in the case of VDUSE, it needs to wait for the response from the
userspace, this means cond_resched() is probably a must for the case
like UP.
Additionally, if the bug is vdpasim, I think it's better to try toIt's possible (but require some rework on the simulator core). But
solve it there, if possible.
Looking at vdpasim_net_work() and vdpasim_blk_work() it looks like
neither needs a process context, so perhaps you could rework it to run
the work_fn() directly from vdpasim_kick_vq(), at least for the control
virtqueue?
considering we have other similar use cases, it looks better to solve
it in the virtio-net driver.
Additionally, this may have better behaviour when using for the buggyAgreed. Possibly a timeout could be useful, too.
hardware (e.g the control virtqueue takes too long to respond). We may
consider switching to use interrupt/sleep in the future (but not
suitable for -net).
Cheers,
Paolo
regular drivers basically derive them from hardware
behaviour but with a generic driver like virtio it's harder.
I guess we could add timeout as a config field, have
device make a promise to the driver.
Making the wait interruptible seems more reasonable.
Yes, but I think we still need this patch for -net and -stable.
Thanks