Re: [PATCH v2] net-tun: restructure tun_do_read for better sleep/wakeup efficiency

[Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>]

On 05/20/2014 02:34 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 02:03:34PM +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 05/20/2014 01:11 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 12:44 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 05/19/2014 10:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>> About the sk_data_ready() and wake_up_all(), you missed the whole part
>>>>> of the patch I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Check how sock_def_readable() does everything properly and efficiently,
>>>>> including the async part.
>>>> But this changes (sk_data_ready()) has nothing related to switching to
>>>> use __skb_recv_datagram()
>>>>
>>> This is totally related.
>>>
>>> I think you did not yet understood this patch
>> Sorry for being unclear, but I think you misunderstand my meaning.
>>> Compare wake_up_all() and sk_data_ready() speeds, you'll be surprised.
>>>
>>> You should ask to yourself : Why do we use wq_has_sleeper() in
>>> networking stacks ?
>> See my first reply, I don't have objection that uses sk_data_ready() in
>> tun_net_xmit(). My only concern is using sk_data_ready() in
>> tun_detach_all():
>>
>> - It was only called during tun destroying, so I believe we don't care
>> about the performance in this condition.
>> - sk_data_ready() was usually called when there's something new to be
>> processed which is not case in tun_detach_all()
> OK so what does userspace do to notice change in behaviour?
> I don't ask that you write a test but can you show us in
> pseudo-code?
>
>

Not currently but possible in the future.
>> - Not sure it was a problem but sock_def_readable() will not wake up
>> uninterruptible task during tun destroying.
> But task_uninterruptible here would really mean some in-kernel caller
> hooking into this function? 

Yes.
> is there a way to create this from
> userspace? If not we don't care.
 
I think not.
>> - If we make sock_fasync() works for tun in the future, it may send
>> SIGIO to user process during tun destroying which is not expected.
>>
>> Thanks
> I don't get this last comment. The patch does not touch fasync paths
> at all. How can it break them?

sock_def_readable() will call sk_wake_async() which may send SIGIO to
userspace if SOCK_FASYNC were set for socket. But currently tun has its
own implementation of fasync, so this can not happen. But if we want to
switch to use sock_fasync() for tun in the future, this issue may appear.