On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 09:31:24PM +0000, Boyer, Andrew wrote:

quoted

On Feb 24, 2025, at 4:03 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin [off-list ref] wrote:

Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding.


On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 09:39:44AM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:

quoted

Am 22.01.25 um 23:07 schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin:

quoted

On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 06:33:04PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:

quoted

Am 22.01.25 um 15:44 schrieb Boyer, Andrew:
[...]

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

--- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
+++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c

@@ -379,14 +379,10 @@ static void virtio_commit_rqs(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
 {
   struct virtio_blk *vblk = hctx->queue->queuedata;
   struct virtio_blk_vq *vq = &vblk->vqs[hctx->queue_num];
-   bool kick;
   spin_lock_irq(&vq->lock);
-   kick = virtqueue_kick_prepare(vq->vq);
+   virtqueue_kick(vq->vq);
   spin_unlock_irq(&vq->lock);
-
-   if (kick)
-           virtqueue_notify(vq->vq);
 }

I would assume this will be a performance nightmare for normal IO.

Hello Michael and Christian and Jason,
Thank you for taking a look.

Is the performance concern that the vmexit might lead to the underlying virtual storage stack doing the work immediately? Any other job posting to the same queue would presumably be blocked on a vmexit when it goes to attempt its own notification. That would be almost the same as having the other job block on a lock during the operation, although I guess if you are skipping notifications somehow it would look different.

The performance concern is that you hold a lock and then exit. Exits are expensive and can schedule so you will increase the lock holding time significantly. This is begging for lock holder preemption.
Really, dont do it.

The issue is with hardware that wants a copy of an index sent to
it in a notification. Now, you have a race:


thread 1:

   index = 1
           ->                      -> send 1 to hardware

thread 2:

   index = 2
           -> send 2 to hardware




the spec unfortunately does not say whether that is legal.

As far as I could tell, the device can easily use the
wrap counter inside the notification to detect this
and simply discard the "1" notification.


If not, I'd like to understand why.

Yes I agree with you here.
I just want to emphasize that holding a lock during notify is not a workable solution.

Andrew, what do you say?

--
MST

"can *easily* use" -> No.

Our doorbell hardware is configurable, but not infinitely programmable. None of the suggested workarounds are feasible for hardware in the face of incorrect driver behavior. We have marked the feature as broken in the linux kernel driver and moved on.

Thanks,
Andrew

Thanks Andrew, I understand.
My question would be, is the feature worth it for you?

I see two way to move forward
1.- amend spec to say notifications can be reordered
2.- amend spec to say they can not be reordered and add a new feature bit
    saying they can be
    add a new lock for driver to hold in case the feature is off


1 is less work but if 2 gives you a big performance advantage, I can do it.

-- 
MST