> -----Original Message-----
> From: Xia, Chenbo <chenbo....@intel.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 10:54 AM
> To: Liu, Changpeng <changpeng....@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Cc: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH] vhost: use try_lock in rte_vhost_vring_call
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Liu, Changpeng <changpeng....@intel.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 10:34 AM
> > To: Xia, Chenbo <chenbo....@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > Cc: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] vhost: use try_lock in rte_vhost_vring_call
> >
> > Hi Bo,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Xia, Chenbo <chenbo....@intel.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 10:25 AM
> > > To: Liu, Changpeng <changpeng....@intel.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> > > Cc: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>
> > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] vhost: use try_lock in rte_vhost_vring_call
> > >
> > > Hi Changpeng,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Liu, Changpeng <changpeng....@intel.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:22 AM
> > > > To: dev@dpdk.org
> > > > Cc: Liu, Changpeng <changpeng....@intel.com>; Maxime Coquelin
> > > > <maxime.coque...@redhat.com>; Xia, Chenbo <chenbo....@intel.com>
> > > > Subject: [PATCH] vhost: use try_lock in rte_vhost_vring_call
> > > >
> > > > Note that this function is in data path, so the thread context
> > > > may not same as socket messages processing context, by using
> > > > try_lock here, users can have another try in case of VQ's access
> > > > lock is held by `vhost-events` thread.
> > >
> > > Better to describe the issue this patch wants to fix and how does
> > > it fix.
> > >
> > > I remember it's a bz issue, do you want to backport? And it has
> > > some bz ID, we need to add it in commit message.
> > Actually it's my intention not to add bz ID, as I think for this bz ID,
> > It's better not to lock all VQ's access lock for KICK/CALLFD messages,
>
> Do you plan to add this change? I think that may be an improvement to current
> locking implementation.
No, I don't have such a plan.
>
> Maxime, what do you think of this idea about only locking specific queue when
> handling vring related message (not global config like mem table)?
>
> > What do you think? If this is identified as a fix, I can backport it to
> > 22.05.
>
> You can decide, if this is planned to be the fix, just backport. I am just
> thinking if this is not the fix for the bz, do we still need this?
Adding the bz ID is OK to me. From SPDK's view indeed it's a fix. Will send
V2 later. Thanks.
>
> Thanks,
> Chenbo
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Changpeng Liu <changpeng....@intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > lib/vhost/vhost.c | 6 +++++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/lib/vhost/vhost.c b/lib/vhost/vhost.c
> > > > index 60cb05a0ff..072d2acb7b 100644
> > > > --- a/lib/vhost/vhost.c
> > > > +++ b/lib/vhost/vhost.c
> > > > @@ -1329,7 +1329,11 @@ rte_vhost_vring_call(int vid, uint16_t
> > vring_idx)
> > > > if (!vq)
> > > > return -1;
> > > >
> > > > - rte_spinlock_lock(&vq->access_lock);
> > > > + if (!rte_spinlock_trylock(&vq->access_lock)) {
> > > > + VHOST_LOG_CONFIG(dev->ifname, DEBUG,
> > >
> > > Should use VHOST_LOG_DATA
> > OK.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Chenbo
> > >
> > > > + "failed to kick guest, virtqueue busy.\n");
> > > > + return -1;
> > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > if (vq_is_packed(dev))
> > > > vhost_vring_call_packed(dev, vq);
> > > > --
> > > > 2.21.3
