Re: [PULL 2/2] vhost: replace rcu with mutex
From: Eric Dumazet <hidden>
Date: 2014-06-02 21:58:06
Also in:
kvm, lkml, virtualization
On Tue, 2014-06-03 at 00:30 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
All memory accesses are done under some VQ mutex. So lock/unlock all VQs is a faster equivalent of synchronize_rcu() for memory access changes. Some guests cause a lot of these changes, so it's helpful to make them faster. Reported-by: "Gonglei (Arei)" <arei.gonglei@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> --- drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 10 +++++++++- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c index 78987e4..1c05e60 100644 --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c@@ -593,6 +593,7 @@ static long vhost_set_memory(struct vhost_dev *d, struct vhost_memory __user *m) { struct vhost_memory mem, *newmem, *oldmem; unsigned long size = offsetof(struct vhost_memory, regions); + int i; if (copy_from_user(&mem, m, size)) return -EFAULT;@@ -619,7 +620,14 @@ static long vhost_set_memory(struct vhost_dev *d, struct vhost_memory __user *m) oldmem = rcu_dereference_protected(d->memory, lockdep_is_held(&d->mutex)); rcu_assign_pointer(d->memory, newmem); - synchronize_rcu(); + + /* All memory accesses are done under some VQ mutex. + * So below is a faster equivalent of synchronize_rcu() + */ + for (i = 0; i < d->nvqs; ++i) { + mutex_lock(&d->vqs[i]->mutex); + mutex_unlock(&d->vqs[i]->mutex); + } kfree(oldmem); return 0; }
This looks dubious What about using kfree_rcu() instead ? translate_desc() still uses rcu_read_lock(), its not clear if the mutex is really held.