Re: [PATCH 5 of 5] virtio: expose added descriptors immediately
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Date: 2011-11-16 07:17:26
Also in:
kvm, lkml
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 10:51:26AM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:56:06 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin" [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:03:13PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:quoted
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 06:12:53PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:quoted
A virtio driver does virtqueue_add_buf() multiple times before finally calling virtqueue_kick(); previously we only exposed the added buffers in the virtqueue_kick() call. This means we don't need a memory barrier in virtqueue_add_buf(), but it reduces concurrency as the device (ie. host) can't see the buffers until the kick. Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <redacted>In the past I played with a patch like this, but I didn't see a performance gain either way. Do you see any gain? I'm a bit concerned that with this patch, a buggy driver that adds more than 2^16 descriptors without a kick would seem to work sometimes. Let's add WARN_ON(vq->num_added > (1 << 16))?Thinking about it more - it might be tricky for drivers to ensure this. add used to fail when vq is full, but now driver might do get between add and notify: lock add_buf * N prep unlock lock get_buf * N unlock lock add_buf prep unlock notify and since add was followed by get, this doesn't fail.Right, the driver could, in theory, do: add_buf() if (!get_buf()) notify() But we don't allow that at the moment in our API: we insist on a notify occasionally. Noone does this at the moment, so a WARN_ON is correct. If you're just add_buf() without the get_buf() then add_buf() will fail already. Here's my current variant:diff --git a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c --- a/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c +++ b/drivers/virtio/virtio_ring.c@@ -245,9 +245,19 @@ add_head: /* Put entry in available array (but don't update avail->idx until they * do sync). */ - avail = ((vq->vring.avail->idx + vq->num_added++) & (vq->vring.num-1)); + avail = (vq->vring.avail->idx & (vq->vring.num-1)); vq->vring.avail->ring[avail] = head; + /* Descriptors and available array need to be set before we expose the + * new available array entries. */ + virtio_wmb(); + vq->vring.avail->idx++; + vq->num_added++; + + /* If you haven't kicked in this long, you're probably doing something + * wrong. */ + WARN_ON(vq->num_added > vq->vring.num); + pr_debug("Added buffer head %i to %p\n", head, vq); END_USE(vq);It's hard to write a useful WARN_ON() for the "you should kick more regularly" case (we could take timestamps if DEBUG is defined, I guess), so let's leave this until someone actually trips it. Thanks, Rusty.
My unlocked kick patches will trip this warning: they make virtio-net do add + get without kick. I think block with unlocked kick can trip it too: add, lock is dropped and then an interrupt can get. We also don't need a kick each num - each 2^15 is enough. Why don't we do this at start of add_buf: if (vq->num_added >= 0x7fff) return -ENOSPC; -- MST