linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] vhost: replace vhost

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100531143945.GA6497@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 31 May 2010 16:39:45 +0200
From:	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
	Sridhar Samudrala <sri@...ibm.com>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dmitri Vorobiev <dmitri.vorobiev@...ial.com>,
	Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] vhost: replace vhost_workqueue with per-vhost
	kthread

On 05/30, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> This conversion is to make each vhost use a dedicated kthread so that
> resource control via cgroup can be applied.

Personally, I agree. I think This is better than play with workqueue thread.

A couple of simple questions after the quick glance at the unapplied patch...

>  void vhost_poll_flush(struct vhost_poll *poll)
>  {
> -	flush_work(&poll->work);
> +	int seq = poll->queue_seq;
> +
> +	if (seq - poll->done_seq > 0)
> +		wait_event(poll->done, seq - poll->done_seq <= 0);

The check before wait_event() is not needed, please note that wait_event()
checks the condition before __wait_event().

What I can't understand is why we do have ->queue_seq and ->done_seq.

Isn't the single "bool poll->active" enough? vhost_poll_queue() sets
->active == T, vhost_poller() clears it before wake_up_all(poll->done).

> +static int vhost_poller(void *data)
> +{
> +	struct vhost_dev *dev = data;
> +	struct vhost_poll *poll;
> +
> +repeat:
> +	set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);	/* mb paired w/ kthread_stop */

I don't understand the comment... why do we need this barrier?

> +	if (kthread_should_stop()) {
> +		__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> +		return 0;
> +	}
> +
> +	poll = NULL;
> +	spin_lock(&dev->poller_lock);
> +	if (!list_empty(&dev->poll_list)) {
> +		poll = list_first_entry(&dev->poll_list,
> +					struct vhost_poll, node);
> +		list_del_init(&poll->node);
> +	}
> +	spin_unlock(&dev->poller_lock);
> +
> +	if (poll) {
> +		__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> +		poll->fn(poll);
> +		smp_wmb();	/* paired with rmb in vhost_poll_flush() */
> +		poll->done_seq = poll->queue_seq;
> +		wake_up_all(&poll->done);
> +	} else
> +		schedule();
> +
> +	goto repeat;
> +}

Given that vhost_poll_queue() does list_add() and wake_up_process() under
->poller_lock, I don't think we need any barriers to change ->state.

IOW, can't vhost_poller() simply do

	while(!kthread_should_stop()) {

		poll = NULL;
		spin_lock(&dev->poller_lock);
		if (!list_empty(&dev->poll_list)) {
			...
		} else
			 __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
		spin_unlock(&dev->poller_lock);

		if (poll) {
			...
		} else
			schedule();
	}

?

Oleg.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/