All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Eli Cohen <elic@nvidia.com>,
	virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vdpa: mlx5: prevent cvq work from hogging CPU
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:17:06 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220324021428-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220324060419.3682-1-hdanton@sina.com>

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 02:04:19PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:34:09 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 8:54 AM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:59:14 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there will be no "infinite" loop, but since the loop is triggered
> > > > by userspace. It looks to me it will delay the flush/drain of the
> > > > workqueue forever which is still suboptimal.
> > >
> > > Usually it is barely possible to shoot two birds using a stone.
> > >
> > > Given the "forever", I am inclined to not running faster, hehe, though
> > > another cobble is to add another line in the loop checking if mvdev is
> > > unregistered, and for example make mvdev->cvq unready before destroying
> > > workqueue.
> > >
> > > static void mlx5_vdpa_dev_del(struct vdpa_mgmt_dev *v_mdev, struct vdpa_device *dev)
> > > {
> > >         struct mlx5_vdpa_mgmtdev *mgtdev = container_of(v_mdev, struct mlx5_vdpa_mgmtdev, mgtdev);
> > >         struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev = to_mvdev(dev);
> > >         struct mlx5_vdpa_net *ndev = to_mlx5_vdpa_ndev(mvdev);
> > >
> > >         mlx5_notifier_unregister(mvdev->mdev, &ndev->nb);
> > >         destroy_workqueue(mvdev->wq);
> > >         _vdpa_unregister_device(dev);
> > >         mgtdev->ndev = NULL;
> > > }
> > >
> > 
> > Yes, so we had
> > 
> > 1) using a quota for re-requeue
> > 2) using something like
> > 
> > while (READ_ONCE(cvq->ready)) {
> >         ...
> >         cond_resched();
> > }
> > 
> > There should not be too much difference except we need to use
> > cancel_work_sync() instead of flush_work for 1).
> > 
> > I would keep the code as is but if you stick I can change.
> 
> No Sir I would not - I am simply not a fan of work requeue.
> 
> Hillf

I think I agree - requeue adds latency spikes under heavy load -
unfortunately, not measured by netperf but still important
for latency sensitive workloads. Checking a flag is cheaper.

-- 
MST

_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>, Eli Cohen <elic@nvidia.com>,
	virtualization <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] vdpa: mlx5: prevent cvq work from hogging CPU
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 02:17:06 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220324021428-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220324060419.3682-1-hdanton@sina.com>

On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 02:04:19PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2022 10:34:09 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 8:54 AM Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 22 Mar 2022 09:59:14 +0800 Jason Wang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there will be no "infinite" loop, but since the loop is triggered
> > > > by userspace. It looks to me it will delay the flush/drain of the
> > > > workqueue forever which is still suboptimal.
> > >
> > > Usually it is barely possible to shoot two birds using a stone.
> > >
> > > Given the "forever", I am inclined to not running faster, hehe, though
> > > another cobble is to add another line in the loop checking if mvdev is
> > > unregistered, and for example make mvdev->cvq unready before destroying
> > > workqueue.
> > >
> > > static void mlx5_vdpa_dev_del(struct vdpa_mgmt_dev *v_mdev, struct vdpa_device *dev)
> > > {
> > >         struct mlx5_vdpa_mgmtdev *mgtdev = container_of(v_mdev, struct mlx5_vdpa_mgmtdev, mgtdev);
> > >         struct mlx5_vdpa_dev *mvdev = to_mvdev(dev);
> > >         struct mlx5_vdpa_net *ndev = to_mlx5_vdpa_ndev(mvdev);
> > >
> > >         mlx5_notifier_unregister(mvdev->mdev, &ndev->nb);
> > >         destroy_workqueue(mvdev->wq);
> > >         _vdpa_unregister_device(dev);
> > >         mgtdev->ndev = NULL;
> > > }
> > >
> > 
> > Yes, so we had
> > 
> > 1) using a quota for re-requeue
> > 2) using something like
> > 
> > while (READ_ONCE(cvq->ready)) {
> >         ...
> >         cond_resched();
> > }
> > 
> > There should not be too much difference except we need to use
> > cancel_work_sync() instead of flush_work for 1).
> > 
> > I would keep the code as is but if you stick I can change.
> 
> No Sir I would not - I am simply not a fan of work requeue.
> 
> Hillf

I think I agree - requeue adds latency spikes under heavy load -
unfortunately, not measured by netperf but still important
for latency sensitive workloads. Checking a flag is cheaper.

-- 
MST


  reply	other threads:[~2022-03-24  6:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-03-21  6:04 [PATCH 1/2] vdpa: mlx5: prevent cvq work from hogging CPU Jason Wang
2022-03-21  6:04 ` Jason Wang
2022-03-21  6:04 ` [PATCH 2/2] vdpa: mlx5: synchronize driver status with CVQ Jason Wang
2022-03-21  6:04   ` Jason Wang
2022-03-21  6:56   ` Eli Cohen
2022-03-21  7:23   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-21  7:23     ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-21  7:36     ` Jason Wang
2022-03-21  7:36       ` Jason Wang
2022-03-21  6:31 ` [PATCH 1/2] vdpa: mlx5: prevent cvq work from hogging CPU Eli Cohen
2022-03-21  7:20 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-21  7:20   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-21  7:35   ` Jason Wang
2022-03-21  7:35     ` Jason Wang
2022-03-21  8:53 ` Hillf Danton
2022-03-21  8:59   ` Jason Wang
2022-03-21  8:59     ` Jason Wang
2022-03-21  9:00     ` Jason Wang
2022-03-21  9:00       ` Jason Wang
2022-03-21 12:34       ` Hillf Danton
2022-03-22  1:59         ` Jason Wang
2022-03-22  1:59           ` Jason Wang
2022-03-24  0:53           ` Hillf Danton
2022-03-24  2:34             ` Jason Wang
2022-03-24  2:34               ` Jason Wang
2022-03-24  6:04               ` Hillf Danton
2022-03-24  6:17                 ` Michael S. Tsirkin [this message]
2022-03-24  6:17                   ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-24  8:20                   ` Jason Wang
2022-03-24  8:20                     ` Jason Wang
2022-03-24 12:02                     ` Hillf Danton
2022-03-24 12:24                       ` Eli Cohen
2022-03-25  3:22                         ` Jason Wang
2022-03-25  3:22                           ` Jason Wang
2022-03-25  6:45                           ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-25  6:45                             ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2022-03-25  7:53                             ` Jason Wang
2022-03-25  7:53                               ` Jason Wang
2022-03-25 11:57                               ` Hillf Danton

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20220324021428-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org \
    --to=mst@redhat.com \
    --cc=elic@nvidia.com \
    --cc=hdanton@sina.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.