Re: [PATCH net-next] virtio_net: Prevent misidentified spurious interrupts from killing the irq

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2024 at 11:26:56AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2024 at 9:11 PM Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2024 at 11:41:57AM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:56 PM Heng Qi <hengqi@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Michael has effectively reduced the number of spurious interrupts in
> > > > commit a7766ef18b33 ("virtio_net: disable cb aggressively") by disabling
> > > > irq callbacks before cleaning old buffers.
> > > >
> > > > But it is still possible that the irq is killed by mistake:
> > > >
> > > >   When a delayed tx interrupt arrives, old buffers has been cleaned in
> > > >   other paths (start_xmit and virtnet_poll_cleantx), then the interrupt is
> > > >   mistakenly identified as a spurious interrupt in vring_interrupt.
> > > >
> > > >   We should refrain from labeling it as a spurious interrupt; otherwise,
> > > >   note_interrupt may inadvertently kill the legitimate irq.
> > >
> > > I think the evil came from where we do free_old_xmit() in
> > > start_xmit(). I know it is for performance, but we may need to make
> > > the code work correctly instead of adding endless hacks. Personally, I
> > > think the virtio-net TX path is over-complicated. We probably pay too
> > > much (e.g there's netif_tx_lock in TX NAPI path) to try to "optimize"
> > > the performance.
> > >
> > > How about just don't do free_old_xmit and do that solely in the TX NAPI?
> >
> > Not getting interrupts is always better than getting interrupts.
> 
> Not sure. For example letting 1 cpu to do the transmission without the
> dealing of xmit skbs should give us better performance.

Hmm. It's a subtle thing. I suspect until certain limit
(e.g. ping pong test) free_old_xmit will win anyway.

> > This is not new code, there are no plans to erase it all and start
> > anew "to make it work correctly" - it's widely deployed,
> > you will cause performance regressions and they are hard
> > to debug.
> 
> I actually meant the TX NAPI mode, we tried to hold the TX lock in the
> TX NAPI, which turns out to slow down both the transmission and the
> NAPI itself.
> 
> Thanks

We do need to synchronize anyway though, virtio expects drivers to do
their own serialization of vq operations. You could try to instead move
skbs to some kind of array under the tx lock, then free them all up
later after unlocking tx.

Can be helpful for batching as well?


I also always wondered whether it is an issue that free_old_xmit
just polls vq until it is empty, without a limit.
napi is supposed to poll until a limit is reached.
I guess not many people have very deep vqs.

-- 
MST