[lkml]   [2019]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: WARNING in __mmdrop

On 2019/7/29 下午4:59, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:54:49PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 2019/7/26 下午9:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>>> Ok, let me retry if necessary (but I do remember I end up with deadlocks
>>>>> last try).
>>>> Ok, I play a little with this. And it works so far. Will do more testing
>>>> tomorrow.
>>>> One reason could be I switch to use get_user_pages_fast() to
>>>> __get_user_pages_fast() which doesn't need mmap_sem.
>>>> Thanks
>>> OK that sounds good. If we also set a flag to make
>>> vhost_exceeds_weight exit, then I think it will be all good.
>> After some experiments, I came up two methods:
>> 1) switch to use vq->mutex, then we must take the vq lock during range
>> checking (but I don't see obvious slowdown for 16vcpus + 16queues). Setting
>> flags during weight check should work but it still can't address the worst
>> case: wait for the page to be swapped in. Is this acceptable?
>> 2) using current RCU but replace synchronize_rcu() with vhost_work_flush().
>> The worst case is the same as 1) but we can check range without holding any
>> locks.
>> Which one did you prefer?
>> Thanks
> I would rather we start with 1 and switch to 2 after we
> can show some gain.
> But the worst case needs to be addressed.


> How about sending a signal to
> the vhost thread? We will need to fix up error handling (I think that
> at the moment it will error out in that case, handling this as EFAULT -
> and we don't want to drop packets if we can help it, and surely not
> enter any error states. In particular it might be especially tricky if
> we wrote into userspace memory and are now trying to log the write.
> I guess we can disable the optimization if log is enabled?).

This may work but requires a lot of changes. And actually it's the price
of using vq mutex. Actually, the critical section should be rather
small, e.g just inside memory accessors.

I wonder whether or not just do synchronize our self like:

static void inline vhost_inc_vq_ref(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
        int ref = READ_ONCE(vq->ref);

        WRITE_ONCE(vq->ref, ref + 1);

static void inline vhost_dec_vq_ref(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
        int ref = READ_ONCE(vq->ref);

        WRITE_ONCE(vq->ref, ref - 1);

static void inline vhost_wait_for_ref(struct vhost_virtqueue *vq)
        while (READ_ONCE(vq->ref));

Or using smp_load_acquire()/smp_store_release() instead?



 \ /
  Last update: 2019-07-29 16:26    [W:0.104 / U:9.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site