Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] virtio_net: Map NAPIs to queues
From: Joe Damato <hidden>
Date: 2025-01-13 22:24:00
Also in:
lkml, virtualization
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 02:04:46PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 09:30:20 -0800 Joe Damato wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
static void virtnet_napi_enable_lock(struct virtqueue *vq, - struct napi_struct *napi) + struct napi_struct *napi, + bool need_rtnl) { + struct virtnet_info *vi = vq->vdev->priv; + int q = vq2rxq(vq); + virtnet_napi_do_enable(vq, napi); + + if (q < vi->curr_queue_pairs) { + if (need_rtnl) + rtnl_lock();Can we tweak the caller to call rtnl_lock() instead to avoid this trick?The major problem is that if the caller calls rtnl_lock() before calling virtnet_napi_enable_lock, then virtnet_napi_do_enable (and thus napi_enable) happen under the lock. Jakub mentioned in a recent change [1] that napi_enable may soon need to sleep. Given the above constraints, the only way to avoid the "need_rtnl" would be to refactor the code much more, placing calls (or wrappers) to netif_queue_set_napi in many locations. IMHO: This implementation seemed cleaner than putting calls to netif_queue_set_napi throughout the driver. Please let me know how you'd like to proceed on this. [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20250111024742.3680902-1-kuba@kernel.org/ (local)I'm going to make netif_queue_set_napi() take netdev->lock, and remove the rtnl_lock requirement ~this week. If we need conditional locking perhaps we're better off waiting?
That seems reasonable to me and I can wait. Please CC me on that series so I can take a look and I'll adjust the v2 of this series to avoid the locking once your series is merged. Thanks!