[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56D3D404.6080600@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 13:15:48 +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,
RAPOPORT@...ibm.com, yang.zhang.wz@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] vhost_net: basic polling support
On 02/28/2016 10:09 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:42:44PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> > This patch tries to poll for new added tx buffer or socket receive
>> > queue for a while at the end of tx/rx processing. The maximum time
>> > spent on polling were specified through a new kind of vring ioctl.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
> Looks good overall, but I still see one problem.
>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/vhost/net.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> > drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 14 ++++++++
>> > drivers/vhost/vhost.h | 1 +
>> > include/uapi/linux/vhost.h | 6 ++++
>> > 4 files changed, 95 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> > index 9eda69e..c91af93 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
>> > @@ -287,6 +287,44 @@ static void vhost_zerocopy_callback(struct ubuf_info *ubuf, bool success)
>> > rcu_read_unlock_bh();
>> > }
>> >
>> > +static inline unsigned long busy_clock(void)
>> > +{
>> > + return local_clock() >> 10;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +static bool vhost_can_busy_poll(struct vhost_dev *dev,
>> > + unsigned long endtime)
>> > +{
>> > + return likely(!need_resched()) &&
>> > + likely(!time_after(busy_clock(), endtime)) &&
>> > + likely(!signal_pending(current)) &&
>> > + !vhost_has_work(dev) &&
>> > + single_task_running();
> So I find it quite unfortunate that this still uses single_task_running.
> This means that for example a SCHED_IDLE task will prevent polling from
> becoming active, and that seems like a bug, or at least
> an undocumented feature :).
Yes, it may need more thoughts.
>
> Unfortunately this logic affects the behaviour as observed
> by userspace, so we can't merge it like this and tune
> afterwards, since otherwise mangement tools will start
> depending on this logic.
>
>
How about remove single_task_running() first here and optimize on top?
We probably need something like this to handle overcommitment.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists