Re: [PATCH RFC] virtio_net: gate delayed refill scheduling

[Bui Quang Minh <minhquangbui99@gmail.com>]

On 11/28/25 09:20, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 1:47 AM Bui Quang Minh <minhquangbui99@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the the requeue in refill_work is not the problem here. In
>> virtnet_rx_pause[_all](), we use cancel_work_sync() which is safe to
>> use "even if the work re-queues itself". AFAICS, cancel_work_sync()
>> will disable work -> flush work -> enable again. So if the work requeue
>> itself in flush work, the requeue will fail because the work is already
>> disabled.
> Right.
>
>> I think what triggers the deadlock here is a bug in
>> virtnet_rx_resume_all(). virtnet_rx_resume_all() calls to
>> __virtnet_rx_resume() which calls napi_enable() and may schedule
>> refill. It schedules the refill work right after napi_enable the first
>> receive queue. The correct way must be napi_enable all receive queues
>> before scheduling refill work.
> So what you meant is that the napi_disable() is called for a queue
> whose NAPI has been disabled?
>
> cpu0] enable_delayed_refill()
> cpu0] napi_enable(queue0)
> cpu0] schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill)
> cpu1] napi_disable(queue0)
> cpu1] napi_enable(queue0)
> cpu1] napi_disable(queue1)
>
> In this case cpu1 waits forever while holding the netdev lock. This
> looks like a bug since the netdev_lock 413f0271f3966 ("net: protect
> NAPI enablement with netdev_lock()")?

Yes, I've tried to fix it in 4bc12818b363 ("virtio-net: disable delayed 
refill when pausing rx"), but it has flaws.

>> The fix is like this (there are quite duplicated code, I will clean up
>> and send patches later if it is correct)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>> index 8e04adb57f52..892aa0805d1b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/virtio_net.c
>> @@ -3482,20 +3482,25 @@ static void __virtnet_rx_resume(struct virtnet_info *vi,
>>    static void virtnet_rx_resume_all(struct virtnet_info *vi)
>>    {
>>        int i;
>> +    bool schedule_refill = false;
>> +
>> +    for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++)
>> +        __virtnet_rx_resume(vi, &vi->rq[i], false);
>>
>>        enable_delayed_refill(vi);
>> -    for (i = 0; i < vi->max_queue_pairs; i++) {
>> -        if (i < vi->curr_queue_pairs)
>> -            __virtnet_rx_resume(vi, &vi->rq[i], true);
>> -        else
>> -            __virtnet_rx_resume(vi, &vi->rq[i], false);
>> -    }
>> +
>> +    for (i = 0; i < vi->curr_queue_pairs; i++)
>> +        if (!try_fill_recv(vi, &vi->rq[i], GFP_KERNEL))
>> +            schedule_refill = true;
>> +
>> +    if (schedule_refill)
>> +        schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, 0);
>>    }
>>
>>    static void virtnet_rx_resume(struct virtnet_info *vi, struct receive_queue *rq)
>>    {
>> -    enable_delayed_refill(vi);
>>        __virtnet_rx_resume(vi, rq, true);
>> +    enable_delayed_refill(vi);
> This seems to be odd. I think at least we need to move this before:
>
>> +    if (schedule_refill)
>> +        schedule_delayed_work(&vi->refill, 0);
> ?

Yes, I think helper __virtnet_rx_resume does not work well, because 
virtnet_rx_resume_all and virtnet_rx_resume have slightly different 
logic. So I think it's better to open-code the helper and do the logic 
directly in virtnet_rx_resume_all and virtnet_rx_resume.

>>    }
>>
>>    static int virtnet_rx_resize(struct virtnet_info *vi,
>>
>> I also move the enable_delayed_refill() after we __virtnet_rx_resume()
>> to ensure no refill is scheduled before napi_enable().
>>
>> What do you think?
> This has been implemented in your patch or I may miss something.

Yes, I move the enable_delayed_refill after the call __virtnet_rx_resume 
in the above diff because I see it creates a window where delayed refill 
is enabled before napi is enabled. However, AFAICS, other places that 
schedule the delayed refill work must acquire the rtnl_lock and/or 
netdev_lock, so it cannot happen while we are in virtnet_rx_resume[_all].

Thanks,
Quang Minh.