[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACGkMEvVg0KFMcYoKx0ZCCEABsP4TrQCJOUqTn6oHO4Q3aEJ4w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 10:23:15 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@...hat.com>, Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@....com>,
xuanzhuo@...ux.alibaba.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v4 2/2] virtio-net: add cond_resched() to the
command waiting loop
On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 3:41 AM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 10:30:56AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 2:30 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 5:46 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 04:59:33PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > > > > They really shouldn't - any NIC that takes forever to
> > > > > > program will create issues in the networking stack.
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately, it's not rare as the device/cvq could be implemented
> > > > > via firmware or software.
> > > >
> > > > Currently that mean one either has sane firmware with a scheduler that
> > > > can meet deadlines, or loses ability to report errors back.
> > > >
> > > > > > But if they do they can always set this flag too.
> > > > >
> > > > > This may have false negatives and may confuse the management.
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe we can extend the networking core to allow some device specific
> > > > > configurations to be done with device specific lock without rtnl. For
> > > > > example, split the set_channels to
> > > > >
> > > > > pre_set_channels
> > > > > set_channels
> > > > > post_set_channels
> > > > >
> > > > > The device specific part could be done in pre and post without a rtnl lock?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Would the benefit be that errors can be reported to userspace then?
> > > > Then maybe. I think you will have to show how this works for at least
> > > > one card besides virtio.
> > >
> > > Even for virtio, this seems not easy, as e.g the
> > > virtnet_send_command() and netif_set_real_num_tx_queues() need to
> > > appear to be atomic to the networking core.
> > >
> > > I wonder if we can re-consider the way of a timeout here and choose a
> > > sane value as a start.
> >
> > Michael, any more input on this?
> >
> > Thanks
>
> I think this is just mission creep. We are trying to fix
> vduse - let's do that for starters.
>
> Recovering from firmware timeouts is far from trivial and
> just assuming that just because it timed out it will not
> access memory is just as likely to cause memory corruption
> with worse results than an infinite spin.
Yes, this might require support not only in the driver
>
> I propose we fix this for vduse and assume hardware/firmware
> is well behaved.
One major case is the re-connection, in that case it might take
whatever longer that the kernel virito-net driver expects.
So we can have a timeout in VDUSE and trap CVQ then VDUSE can return
and fail early?
> Or maybe not well behaved firmware will
> set the flag losing error reporting ability.
This might be hard since it means not only the set but also the get is
unreliable.
Thanks
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > MST
> > > >
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists