Re: [RFC v4 10/11] vduse: Introduce a workqueue for irq injection

[Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>]

On 2021/3/8 12:50 下午, Yongji Xie wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 11:04 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2021/3/5 4:12 下午, Yongji Xie wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:37 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2021/3/5 3:27 下午, Yongji Xie wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 3:01 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021/3/5 2:36 下午, Yongji Xie wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:42 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2021/3/5 11:30 上午, Yongji Xie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 11:05 AM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/3/4 4:58 下午, Yongji Xie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 2:59 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2021/2/23 7:50 下午, Xie Yongji wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch introduces a workqueue to support injecting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtqueue's interrupt asynchronously. This is mainly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for performance considerations which makes sure the push()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and pop() for used vring can be asynchronous.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have pref numbers for this patch?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, I can do some tests for it if needed.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Another problem is the VIRTIO_RING_F_EVENT_IDX feature will be useless
>>>>>>>>>>> if we call irq callback in ioctl context. Something like:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> virtqueue_push();
>>>>>>>>>>> virtio_notify();
>>>>>>>>>>>           ioctl()
>>>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>               irq_cb()
>>>>>>>>>>>                   virtqueue_get_buf()
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The used vring is always empty each time we call virtqueue_push() in
>>>>>>>>>>> userspace. Not sure if it is what we expected.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure I get the issue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THe used ring should be filled by virtqueue_push() which is done by
>>>>>>>>>> userspace before?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After userspace call virtqueue_push(), it always call virtio_notify()
>>>>>>>>> immediately. In traditional VM (vhost-vdpa) cases, virtio_notify()
>>>>>>>>> will inject an irq to VM and return, then vcpu thread will call
>>>>>>>>> interrupt handler. But in container (virtio-vdpa) cases,
>>>>>>>>> virtio_notify() will call interrupt handler directly. So it looks like
>>>>>>>>> we have to optimize the virtio-vdpa cases. But one problem is we don't
>>>>>>>>> know whether we are in the VM user case or container user case.
>>>>>>>> Yes, but I still don't get why used ring is empty after the ioctl()?
>>>>>>>> Used ring does not use bounce page so it should be visible to the kernel
>>>>>>>> driver. What did I miss :) ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I'm not saying the kernel can't see the correct used vring. I
>>>>>>> mean the kernel will consume the used vring in the ioctl context
>>>>>>> directly in the virtio-vdpa case. In userspace's view, that means
>>>>>>> virtqueue_push() is used vring's producer and virtio_notify() is used
>>>>>>> vring's consumer. They will be called one by one in one thread rather
>>>>>>> than different threads, which looks odd and has a bad effect on
>>>>>>> performance.
>>>>>> Yes, that's why we need a workqueue (WQ_UNBOUND you used). Or do you
>>>>>> want to squash this patch into patch 8?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I think we can see obvious difference when virtio-vdpa is used.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But it looks like we don't need this workqueue in vhost-vdpa cases.
>>>>> Any suggestions?
>>>> I haven't had a deep thought. But I feel we can solve this by using the
>>>> irq bypass manager (or something similar). Then we don't need it to be
>>>> relayed via workqueue and vdpa. But I'm not sure how hard it will be.
>>>>
>>>    Or let vdpa bus drivers give us some information?
>>
>> This kind of 'type' is proposed in the early RFC of vDPA series. One
>> issue is that at device level, we should not differ virtio from vhost,
>> so if we introduce that, it might encourge people to design a device
>> that is dedicated to vhost or virtio which might not be good.
>>
>> But we can re-visit this when necessary.
>>
> OK, I see. How about adding some information in ops.set_vq_cb()?


I'm not sure I get this, maybe you can explain a little bit more?

Thanks


>
> Thanks,
> Yongji
>