From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DE4C3A5A1 for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 02:29:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 156CE218BA for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 02:29:42 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 156CE218BA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id B2A8E6B0007; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 22:29:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id ADA806B0008; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 22:29:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id A18CE6B000A; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 22:29:41 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0063.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.63]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FFE86B0007 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2019 22:29:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin29.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D66F8248ABB for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 02:29:41 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 75841225362.29.meat07_1a3e332bf932e X-HE-Tag: meat07_1a3e332bf932e X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4840 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by imf24.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 02:29:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E479E3DBC2; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 02:29:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.72.12.194] (ovpn-12-194.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.194]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE73510016EA; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 02:29:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 0/9] Fixes for vhost metadata acceleration To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, jgg@ziepe.ca References: <20190809054851.20118-1-jasowang@redhat.com> <20190810134948-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <360a3b91-1ac5-84c0-d34b-a4243fa748c4@redhat.com> <20190812054429-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <663be71f-f96d-cfbc-95a0-da0ac6b82d9f@redhat.com> <20190819162733-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> From: Jason Wang Message-ID: <9325de4b-1d79-eb19-306e-e7a8fa8cc1a5@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:29:32 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190819162733-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Tue, 20 Aug 2019 02:29:39 +0000 (UTC) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2019/8/20 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=885:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 04:12:49PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >> On 2019/8/12 =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=885:49, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:44:51AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote: >>>> On 2019/8/11 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=881:52, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 01:48:42AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote: >>>>>> Hi all: >>>>>> >>>>>> This series try to fix several issues introduced by meta data >>>>>> accelreation series. Please review. >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes from V4: >>>>>> - switch to use spinlock synchronize MMU notifier with accessors >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes from V3: >>>>>> - remove the unnecessary patch >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes from V2: >>>>>> - use seqlck helper to synchronize MMU notifier with vhost worker >>>>>> >>>>>> Changes from V1: >>>>>> - try not use RCU to syncrhonize MMU notifier with vhost worker >>>>>> - set dirty pages after no readers >>>>>> - return -EAGAIN only when we find the range is overlapped with >>>>>> metadata >>>>>> >>>>>> Jason Wang (9): >>>>>> vhost: don't set uaddr for invalid address >>>>>> vhost: validate MMU notifier registration >>>>>> vhost: fix vhost map leak >>>>>> vhost: reset invalidate_count in vhost_set_vring_num_addr() >>>>>> vhost: mark dirty pages during map uninit >>>>>> vhost: don't do synchronize_rcu() in vhost_uninit_vq_maps() >>>>>> vhost: do not use RCU to synchronize MMU notifier with worker >>>>>> vhost: correctly set dirty pages in MMU notifiers callback >>>>>> vhost: do not return -EAGAIN for non blocking invalidation to= o early >>>>>> >>>>>> drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 202 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------= -------- >>>>>> drivers/vhost/vhost.h | 6 +- >>>>>> 2 files changed, 122 insertions(+), 86 deletions(-) >>>>> This generally looks more solid. >>>>> >>>>> But this amounts to a significant overhaul of the code. >>>>> >>>>> At this point how about we revert 7f466032dc9e5a61217f22ea34b2df932= 786bbfc >>>>> for this release, and then re-apply a corrected version >>>>> for the next one? >>>> If possible, consider we've actually disabled the feature. How about= just >>>> queued those patches for next release? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>> Sorry if I was unclear. My idea is that >>> 1. I revert the disabled code >>> 2. You send a patch readding it with all the fixes squashed >>> 3. Maybe optimizations on top right away? >>> 4. We queue *that* for next and see what happens. >>> >>> And the advantage over the patchy approach is that the current patche= s >>> are hard to review. E.g. it's not reasonable to ask RCU guys to revi= ew >>> the whole of vhost for RCU usage but it's much more reasonable to ask >>> about a specific patch. >> >> Ok. Then I agree to revert. >> >> Thanks > Great, so please send the following: > - revert > - squashed and fixed patch Just to confirm, do you want me to send a single series or two? Thanks