[lkml]   [2018]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [V9fs-developer] [PATCH] net/9p: Fix a deadlock case in the virtio transport
On 2018/7/14 20:47, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> jiangyiwen wrote on Sat, Jul 14, 2018:
>> On 2018/7/14 17:05, Dominique Martinet wrote:
>>> jiangyiwen wrote on Sat, Jul 14, 2018:
>>>> When client has multiple threads that issue io requests all the
>>>> time, and the server has a very good performance, it may cause
>>>> cpu is running in the irq context for a long time because it can
>>>> check virtqueue has buf in the *while* loop.
>>>> So we should keep chan->lock in the whole loop.
>>> Hmm, this is generally bad practice to hold a spin lock for long.
>>> In general, spin locks are meant to protect data, not code.
>>> I'd want some numbers to decide on this one, even if I think this
>>> particular case is safe (e.g. this cannot dead-lock)
>> Actually, the loop will not hold a spin lock for long, because other
>> threads will not issue new requests in this case. In addition,
>> virtio-blk or virtio-scsi also use this solution, I guess it may also
>> encounter this problem before.
> Fair enough. If you do have some numbers to give though (throughput
> and/or iops before/after) I'd still be really curious.
>>>> chan->ring_bufs_avail = 1;
>>>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&chan->lock, flags);
>>>> /* Wakeup if anyone waiting for VirtIO ring space. */
>>>> wake_up(chan->vc_wq);
>>> In particular, the wake up here echoes to wait events that will
>>> immediately try to grab the lock, and will needlessly spin on it until
>>> this thread is done.
>>> If we do go this way I'd want setting chan->ring_bufs_avail to be done
>>> just before unlocking and the wakeup to be done just after unlocking out
>>> of the loop iff we processed at least one iteration here.
>> I can move the wakeup operation after the unlocking. Like what I said
>> above, I think this loop will not execute for long.
> Please do, you listed virtio_blk as doing this and they have the same
> kind of pattern with a req_done bool and only restarting stopped queues
> if they processed something

You're right, this wake up operation should be put after the unlocking,
I will resend it. In addition, whether I should resend this patch based
on your 9p-next branch?


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-07-16 03:56    [W:0.073 / U:1.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site