[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACGkMEumax9RFVNgWLv5GyoeQAmwo-UgAq=DrUd4yLxPAUUqBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 13:00:50 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Andrey Ryabinin <arbn@...dex-team.com>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
kvm <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, bpf@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] vhost_net: use RCU callbacks instead of synchronize_rcu()
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 11:32 PM Andrey Ryabinin <arbn@...dex-team.com> wrote:
>
> Currently vhost_net_release() uses synchronize_rcu() to synchronize
> freeing with vhost_zerocopy_callback(). However synchronize_rcu()
> is quite costly operation. It take more than 10 seconds
> to shutdown qemu launched with couple net devices like this:
> -netdev tap,id=tap0,..,vhost=on,queues=80
> because we end up calling synchronize_rcu() netdev_count*queues times.
>
> Free vhost net structures in rcu callback instead of using
> synchronize_rcu() to fix the problem.
I admit the release code is somehow hard to understand. But I wonder
if the following case can still happen with this:
CPU 0 (vhost_dev_cleanup) CPU1
(vhost_net_zerocopy_callback()->vhost_work_queue())
if (!dev->worker)
dev->worker = NULL
wake_up_process(dev->worker)
If this is true. It seems the fix is to move RCU synchronization stuff
in vhost_net_ubuf_put_and_wait()?
Thanks
>
> Signed-off-by: Andrey Ryabinin <arbn@...dex-team.com>
> ---
> drivers/vhost/net.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> index 97a209d6a527..0699d30e83d5 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> @@ -132,6 +132,7 @@ struct vhost_net {
> struct vhost_dev dev;
> struct vhost_net_virtqueue vqs[VHOST_NET_VQ_MAX];
> struct vhost_poll poll[VHOST_NET_VQ_MAX];
> + struct rcu_head rcu;
> /* Number of TX recently submitted.
> * Protected by tx vq lock. */
> unsigned tx_packets;
> @@ -1389,6 +1390,18 @@ static void vhost_net_flush(struct vhost_net *n)
> }
> }
>
> +static void vhost_net_free(struct rcu_head *rcu_head)
> +{
> + struct vhost_net *n = container_of(rcu_head, struct vhost_net, rcu);
> +
> + kfree(n->vqs[VHOST_NET_VQ_RX].rxq.queue);
> + kfree(n->vqs[VHOST_NET_VQ_TX].xdp);
> + kfree(n->dev.vqs);
> + if (n->page_frag.page)
> + __page_frag_cache_drain(n->page_frag.page, n->refcnt_bias);
> + kvfree(n);
> +}
> +
> static int vhost_net_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *f)
> {
> struct vhost_net *n = f->private_data;
> @@ -1404,15 +1417,8 @@ static int vhost_net_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *f)
> sockfd_put(tx_sock);
> if (rx_sock)
> sockfd_put(rx_sock);
> - /* Make sure no callbacks are outstanding */
> - synchronize_rcu();
>
> - kfree(n->vqs[VHOST_NET_VQ_RX].rxq.queue);
> - kfree(n->vqs[VHOST_NET_VQ_TX].xdp);
> - kfree(n->dev.vqs);
> - if (n->page_frag.page)
> - __page_frag_cache_drain(n->page_frag.page, n->refcnt_bias);
> - kvfree(n);
> + call_rcu(&n->rcu, vhost_net_free);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.32.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists