Re: [PATCH 3/4] virtio_ring: introduce a per virtqueue waitqueue

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 07:53:08PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 2:34 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 在 2022/12/27 17:38, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道:
> > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 05:12:58PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > >> 在 2022/12/27 15:33, Michael S. Tsirkin 写道:
> > >>> On Tue, Dec 27, 2022 at 12:30:35PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > >>>>> But device is still going and will later use the buffers.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Same for timeout really.
> > >>>> Avoiding infinite wait/poll is one of the goals, another is to sleep.
> > >>>> If we think the timeout is hard, we can start from the wait.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks
> > >>> If the goal is to avoid disrupting traffic while CVQ is in use,
> > >>> that sounds more reasonable. E.g. someone is turning on promisc,
> > >>> a spike in CPU usage might be unwelcome.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, this would be more obvious is UP is used.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> things we should be careful to address then:
> > >>> 1- debugging. Currently it's easy to see a warning if CPU is stuck
> > >>>      in a loop for a while, and we also get a backtrace.
> > >>>      E.g. with this - how do we know who has the RTNL?
> > >>>      We need to integrate with kernel/watchdog.c for good results
> > >>>      and to make sure policy is consistent.
> > >>
> > >> That's fine, will consider this.
> 
> So after some investigation, it seems the watchdog.c doesn't help. The
> only export helper is touch_softlockup_watchdog() which tries to avoid
> triggering the lockups warning for the known slow path.

I never said you can just use existing exporting APIs. You'll have to
write new ones :)

> And before the patch, we end up with a real infinite loop which could
> be caught by RCU stall detector which is not the case of the sleep.
> What we can do is probably do a periodic netdev_err().
> 
> Thanks

Only with a bad device.

> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> 2- overhead. In a very common scenario when device is in hypervisor,
> > >>>      programming timers etc has a very high overhead, at bootup
> > >>>      lots of CVQ commands are run and slowing boot down is not nice.
> > >>>      let's poll for a bit before waiting?
> > >>
> > >> Then we go back to the question of choosing a good timeout for poll. And
> > >> poll seems problematic in the case of UP, scheduler might not have the
> > >> chance to run.
> > > Poll just a bit :) Seriously I don't know, but at least check once
> > > after kick.
> >
> >
> > I think it is what the current code did where the condition will be
> > check before trying to sleep in the wait_event().
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>> 3- suprise removal. need to wake up thread in some way. what about
> > >>>      other cases of device breakage - is there a chance this
> > >>>      introduces new bugs around that? at least enumerate them please.
> > >>
> > >> The current code did:
> > >>
> > >> 1) check for vq->broken
> > >> 2) wakeup during BAD_RING()
> > >>
> > >> So we won't end up with a never woke up process which should be fine.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks
> > >
> > > BTW BAD_RING on removal will trigger dev_err. Not sure that is a good
> > > idea - can cause crashes if kernel panics on error.
> >
> >
> > Yes, it's better to use __virtqueue_break() instead.
> >
> > But consider we will start from a wait first, I will limit the changes
> > in virtio-net without bothering virtio core.
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>>