linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next 8/8] vhost_net: use lockless peeking for skb array during busy polling

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <50124a4d-ff2c-95cf-58c6-fdfc55747c0f@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Mar 2017 11:53:15 +0800
From:   Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To:     "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:     kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 8/8] vhost_net: use lockless peeking for skb
 array during busy polling



On 2017年03月30日 10:33, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:16:15AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>
>> On 2017年03月29日 20:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:04:47PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> For the socket that exports its skb array, we can use lockless polling
>>>> to avoid touching spinlock during busy polling.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    drivers/vhost/net.c | 7 +++++--
>>>>    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>>>> index 53f09f2..41153a3 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>>>> @@ -551,10 +551,13 @@ static int peek_head_len(struct vhost_net_virtqueue *rvq, struct sock *sk)
>>>>    	return len;
>>>>    }
>>>> -static int sk_has_rx_data(struct sock *sk)
>>>> +static int sk_has_rx_data(struct vhost_net_virtqueue *rvq, struct sock *sk)
>>>>    {
>>>>    	struct socket *sock = sk->sk_socket;
>>>> +	if (rvq->rx_array)
>>>> +		return !__skb_array_empty(rvq->rx_array);
>>>> +
>>>>    	if (sock->ops->peek_len)
>>>>    		return sock->ops->peek_len(sock);
>>> I don't see which patch adds __skb_array_empty.
>> This is not something new, it was introduced by ad69f35d1dc0a ("skb_array:
>> array based FIFO for skbs").
>>
>> Thanks
> Same comment about a compiler barrier applies then.

Ok, rethink about this, since skb_array could be resized, using lockless 
version seems wrong.

For the comment of using compiler barrier, caller 
(vhost_net_rx_peek_head_len) uses cpu_relax(). But I haven't figured out 
why a compiler barrier is needed here. Could you please explain?

Thanks

>
>>>> @@ -579,7 +582,7 @@ static int vhost_net_rx_peek_head_len(struct vhost_net *net,
>>>>    		endtime = busy_clock() + vq->busyloop_timeout;
>>>>    		while (vhost_can_busy_poll(&net->dev, endtime) &&
>>>> -		       !sk_has_rx_data(sk) &&
>>>> +		       !sk_has_rx_data(rvq, sk) &&
>>>>    		       vhost_vq_avail_empty(&net->dev, vq))
>>>>    			cpu_relax();
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.7.4