From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] virtio-net: fix the set affinity bug when CPU
	IDs are not consecutive
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:26:22 +0800
Message-ID: <50EE893E.8020107@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <1357639660-6660-1-git-send-email-gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<87k3rn2qwb.fsf@rustcorp.com.au> <50ECCDF3.9050403@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<87a9sh3lru.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
Reply-To: gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>, Eric Dumazet <erdnetdev@gmail.com>
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <87a9sh3lru.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On 01/10/2013 08:49 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
> Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com> writes:
>> On 01/09/2013 07:31 AM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com> writes:
>>>>   */
>>>>  static u16 virtnet_select_queue(struct net_device *dev, struct sk_buff *skb)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	int txq = skb_rx_queue_recorded(skb) ? skb_get_rx_queue(skb) :
>>>> -		  smp_processor_id();
>>>> +	int txq = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (skb_rx_queue_recorded(skb))
>>>> +		txq = skb_get_rx_queue(skb);
>>>> +	else if ((txq = per_cpu(vq_index, smp_processor_id())) == -1)
>>>> +		txq = 0;
>>>
>>> You should use __get_cpu_var() instead of smp_processor_id() here, ie:
>>>
>>>         else if ((txq = __get_cpu_var(vq_index)) == -1)
>>>
>>> And AFAICT, no reason to initialize txq to 0 to start with.
>>>
>>> So:
>>>
>>>         int txq;
>>>
>>>         if (skb_rx_queue_recorded(skb))
>>> 		txq = skb_get_rx_queue(skb);
>>>         else {
>>>                 txq = __get_cpu_var(vq_index);
>>>                 if (txq == -1)
>>>                         txq = 0;
>>>         }
>>
>> Got it, thank you.
>>
>>>
>>> Now, just to confirm, I assume this can happen even if we use vq_index,
>>> right, because of races with virtnet_set_channels?
>>
>> I still can't understand this race, could you explain more? thank you.
> 
> I assume that someone can call virtnet_set_channels() while we are
> inside virtnet_select_queue(), so they reduce dev->real_num_tx_queues,
> causing virtnet_set_channels to do:
> 
> 	while (unlikely(txq >= dev->real_num_tx_queues))
> 		txq -= dev->real_num_tx_queues;
> 
> Otherwise, when is this loop called?

How about just remove this loop? 

Eric, can you give a help here?

Thanks,
Wanlong Gao

> 
> Thanks,
> Rusty.
>