On 4/20/25 3:05 AM, Jon Kohler wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/net.c b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> index b9b9e9d40951..9b04025eea66 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/net.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/net.c
> @@ -769,13 +769,17 @@ static void handle_tx_copy(struct vhost_net *net,
> struct socket *sock)
> break;
> /* Nothing new? Wait for eventfd to tell us they refilled. */
> if (head == vq->num) {
> + /* If interrupted while doing busy polling, requeue
> + * the handler to be fair handle_rx as well as other
> + * tasks waiting on cpu
> + */
> if (unlikely(busyloop_intr)) {
> vhost_poll_queue(&vq->poll);
> - } else if (unlikely(vhost_enable_notify(&net->dev,
> - vq))) {
> - vhost_disable_notify(&net->dev, vq);
> - continue;
> }
> + /* Kicks are disabled at this point, break loop and
> + * process any remaining batched packets. Queue will
> + * be re-enabled afterwards.
> + */
> break;
> }
It's not clear to me why the zerocopy path does not need a similar change.
> @@ -825,7 +829,14 @@ static void handle_tx_copy(struct vhost_net *net, struct
> socket *sock)
> ++nvq->done_idx;
> } while (likely(!vhost_exceeds_weight(vq, ++sent_pkts, total_len)));
>
> + /* Kicks are still disabled, dispatch any remaining batched msgs. */
> vhost_tx_batch(net, nvq, sock, &msg);
> +
> + /* All of our work has been completed; however, before leaving the
> + * TX handler, do one last check for work, and requeue handler if
> + * necessary. If there is no work, queue will be reenabled.
> + */
> + vhost_net_busy_poll_try_queue(net, vq);
This will call vhost_poll_queue() regardless of the 'busyloop_intr' flag
value, while AFAICS prior to this patch vhost_poll_queue() is only
performed with busyloop_intr == true. Why don't we need to take care of
such flag here?
@Michael: I assume you prefer that this patch will go through the
net-next tree, right?
Thanks,
Paolo
